Legal Opinion · Dissent

Amore v. Frankel

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 25, 1994No. 14689Published

1DissentBerdon, J.

I agree with the opinion of the Appellate Court1 that the trial court should have denied the motion to dismiss. Within the broad allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff Alan Amore alleged a cause of action under General Statutes § 13a-144, which permits a suit for damages resulting from a defective highway that the defendant commissioner of transportation has a duty to maintain. General Statutes § 13b-30 extends the commissioner’s duty to maintain “the roads and drives on the grounds of state institutions,” including those of the University of Connecticut, upon request by the institution.

*370T…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Gurliacci v. MayerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  3. Standard Tallow Corp. v. JowdySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  4. Miko v. Commission on Human Rights & OpportunitiesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  5. Baskin's Appeal from ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API