Salaman v. City of Waterbury
692 A.2d 816, 240 Conn. 921, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 109
Opinion
The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 44 Conn. App. 211 (AC 14709), is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had improperly set aside the verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff because the plaintiff had failed to establish that (1) the city owed a duty to the plaintiffs decedent and (2) that the city had breached any such duty?
“2. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had granted the city’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on a ground that was not first raised in the city’s motion for directed verdict?”
BERDON, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Salaman v. City of Waterbury, 692 A.2d 816, 240 Conn. 921, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 109 (Colo. 1997).
692 A.2d 816 (Salaman v. City of Waterbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Salaman v. City of Waterbury
717 A.2d 161 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)
Finnegan v. Ramsdell, No. Cv 96-0475869s (Jul. 30, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9664 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Gonzalez v. City of Waterbury, No. Cv97-0143396 S (Jul. 17, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8018 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Perkins v. Stop Shop Companies, No. Cv 97 0568241s (Jul. 15, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8503 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Parasco v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
712 A.2d 433 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)