Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

908 A.2d 545, 280 Conn. 919, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 392

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedSeptember 27, 2006

DocketSC 17739

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 908 A.2d 545 (Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad) 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

Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 908 A.2d 545, 280 Conn. 919, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 392 (Colo. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 96 Conn. App. 741 (AC 24895), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s ruling precluding the expert testimony of John W. Kennish, an expert in premises security, on the [920]*920ground that he had no experience, training or special knowledge relating to railroad security systems?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17739. Decided September 27, 2006 John H. Van Lenten, in support of the petition. Robert C. E. Laney, Charles A. Deluca and Sarah F. DePanfilis, in opposition.

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s jury instruction on superseding and intervening causes?”

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, 96 Conn. App. 741 (AC 24895), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s ruling precluding the expert testimony of John W. Kennish, an expert in premises security, on the [920]*920ground that he had no experience, training or special knowledge relating to railroad security systems?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17739. Decided September 27, 2006 John H. Van Lenten, in support of the petition. Robert C. E. Laney, Charles A. Deluca and Sarah F. DePanfilis, in opposition.

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s jury instruction on superseding and intervening causes?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

908 A.2d 545, 280 Conn. 919, 2006 Conn. LEXIS 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-metro-north-commuter-railroad-conn-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack