Martin v. Brady

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Martin v. Brady

782 A.2d 1244, 258 Conn. 919, 2001 Conn. LEXIS 427

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedSeptember 20, 2001

DocketSC 16583

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 782 A.2d 1244 (Martin v. Brady) 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

Martin v. Brady, 782 A.2d 1244, 258 Conn. 919, 2001 Conn. LEXIS 427 (Colo. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 64 Conn. App. 433 (AC 20808), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that Binette v. Sabo, 244 Conn. 23, 710 A.2d 688 (1998), does not permit the plaintiffs tort action because (1) the defendants are protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and (2) the facts are not sufficiently egregious?”

Robert F. Vacchelli, assistant attorney general, in opposition. Decided September 20, 2001

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, 64 Conn. App. 433 (AC 20808), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that Binette v. Sabo, 244 Conn. 23, 710 A.2d 688 (1998), does not permit the plaintiffs tort action because (1) the defendants are protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and (2) the facts are not sufficiently egregious?”

Robert F. Vacchelli, assistant attorney general, in opposition. Decided September 20, 2001

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 A.2d 1244, 258 Conn. 919, 2001 Conn. LEXIS 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-brady-conn-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack