Conway v. Town of Wilton

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Conway v. Town of Wilton

667 A.2d 1271, 235 Conn. 934, 1995 Conn. LEXIS 451

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 11, 1995

DocketSC 15335

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 667 A.2d 1271 (Conway v. Town of Wilton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conway v. Town of Wilton, 667 A.2d 1271, 235 Conn. 934, 1995 Conn. LEXIS 451 (Colo. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 39 Conn. App. 280 (AC 13524), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Should this court reconsider its holding in Manning v. Barenz, 221 Conn. 256 (1992), that the recreational land use statute, General Statutes § 52-557f et seq., applies to municipalities?

“2. If the answer to the first question is no, did the Appellate Court improperly conclude that the trial court was correct in rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendant Connecticut Association of Secondary Schools (CASS), where the plaintiff claimed that CASS owed a duty to the plaintiff independent of any duty it [935]*935may have owed as an ‘owner of land’ within the meaning of the recreational land use statute?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15335. Ira B. Grudberg and David B. Grudberg, in support of the petition. Raymond J. Plouffe, Jr., Hugh W. Cuthbertson and Dana Shaw MacKinnon, in opposition. Decided December 11, 1995

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 39 Conn. App. 280 (AC 13524), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Should this court reconsider its holding in Manning v. Barenz, 221 Conn. 256 (1992), that the recreational land use statute, General Statutes § 52-557f et seq., applies to municipalities?

“2. If the answer to the first question is no, did the Appellate Court improperly conclude that the trial court was correct in rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendant Connecticut Association of Secondary Schools (CASS), where the plaintiff claimed that CASS owed a duty to the plaintiff independent of any duty it [935]*935may have owed as an ‘owner of land’ within the meaning of the recreational land use statute?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15335. Ira B. Grudberg and David B. Grudberg, in support of the petition. Raymond J. Plouffe, Jr., Hugh W. Cuthbertson and Dana Shaw MacKinnon, in opposition. Decided December 11, 1995

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 A.2d 1271, 235 Conn. 934, 1995 Conn. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conway-v-town-of-wilton-conn-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack