Fisk v. Town of Redding

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Fisk v. Town of Redding

209 A.3d 645, 332 Conn. 911

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJune 26, 2019

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 A.3d 645 (Fisk v. Town of Redding) 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

Fisk v. Town of Redding, 209 A.3d 645, 332 Conn. 911 (Colo. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

The named defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 190 Conn. App. 99, 210 A.3d 73 (2019), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the jury's verdict should be set aside because the jury's response to the first special interrogatory, that the condition of an unfenced retaining wall was inherently dangerous, was fatally inconsistent with its response to the third special interrogatory, that the defendant's use of the land nevertheless was not unreasonable?"

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

The named defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 190 Conn. App. 99, 210 A.3d 73 (2019), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the jury's verdict should be set aside because the jury's response to the first special interrogatory, that the condition of an unfenced retaining wall was inherently dangerous, was fatally inconsistent with its response to the third special interrogatory, that the defendant's use of the land nevertheless was not unreasonable?"

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.3d 645, 332 Conn. 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisk-v-town-of-redding-conn-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack