Legal Opinion
King v. Sultar
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 6, 2000No. SC 16086PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*431 Opinion
SULLIVAN, J.
The appellant, the city of New Britain (city), appeals from the trial court’s denial of the city’s motion to intervene in this action between the plaintiff-appellee, Norman King, and the defendant, Robert Sultar. We must consider whether the trial court properly denied an employer, which has paid benefits to a claimant pursuant to General Statutes § 7-433C,1 commonly referred to as the Heart and Hypertension Act, the right to intervene, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-293 (a),2 the intervention provision of the Workers’ *433Compensation Act, in a civil action brought by the…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- In re Baby Girl B.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- LeConche v. ElligersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- State v. SalmonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Bakelaar v. City of West HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Ducharme v. City of PutnamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Perez-Dickson v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2012
- Vollemans v. Town of WallingfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- Caruso v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public HealthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.