Seymour v. Carcia

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Seymour v. Carcia

593 A.2d 130, 219 Conn. 903, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 302

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Seymour v. Carcia. Read the opinion of the Court — 221 Conn. 473 →

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided May 17, 1991·Published

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 24 Conn. App. 446, is granted, limited to the following issue:

Philip J. O’Connor, in support of the petition. Kathryn Calibey, in opposition. Decided May 17, 1991

“Was the Appellate Court correct in determining that the plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of future economic loss?”

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

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 24 Conn. App. 446, is granted, limited to the following issue:

Philip J. O’Connor, in support of the petition. Kathryn Calibey, in opposition. Decided May 17, 1991

“Was the Appellate Court correct in determining that the plaintiff introduced sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of future economic loss?”

Seymour v. Carcia, 593 A.2d 130, 219 Conn. 903, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 302 (Colo. 1991).

Pincite

593 A.2d 130 (Seymour v. Carcia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related