Legal Opinion

Mozeleski v. Thomas

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided April 15, 2003No. AC 22558PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LAVERY, C. J.

In this negligence action, the plaintiff, Glenn Mozeleski, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Robert Hall and Frank Thomas. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined, as a matter of law, that neither defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether either defendant controlled the premises on which the plaintiff was injured. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pleadings, affidavits and other documentary information presented…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
  2. Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  3. Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  4. Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  5. Pion v. Southern New England Telephone Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1997

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. FCM Group, Inc. v. MillerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
  2. Pelak v. Indiana Industrial Services, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. Cornelius v. RosarioConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
  4. Millette v. Connecticut Post Ltd. PartnershipConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
  5. Streifel v. BulkleyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020

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