Legal Opinion
Daigle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided October 17, 2000No. AC 19529PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PELLEGRINO, J.
The plaintiff, Edward Daigle, appeals from the judgment of the trial court awarding him damages in a personal injury action. On appeal, he claims that the court improperly (1) granted the defendant’s motion in limine precluding the introduction of evidence of his lost wages and lost earning capacity, (2) denied his motion for a mistrial on the basis of an inadvertent reference to the word “handcuff’ by the defendant’s counsel during closing argument to *467the jury, (3) awarded him economic damages1 reduced to the percentage of his disability caused by the motor vehicle…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Malmberg v. LopezSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Childs v. BainerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Wichers v. HatchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Mazzucco v. Krall Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Johnson v. FranklinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Murray v. TaylorConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Daigle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- DeVito v. SchwartzConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Hicks v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Hunte v. Amica Mutual InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.