Legal Opinion
Calfee v. Usman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided October 30, 1992No. 14541PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether, in a tort action, two prejudgment remedy statutes, General Statutes §§ 52-278c and 52-278d,1 are *31unconstitutionally vague as a matter of law. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Calfee, made an application for a prejudgment remedy in conjunction with her complaint that the defendant, Ahmed Usman, had negligently operated his automobile so as to cause her serious personal injury. During an adversarial hearing at which the plaintiff made an offer of proof about the automobile accident and its physical sequelae, the trial court denied the application for a…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Brinegar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay ViewSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- State v. IndrisanoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Sassone v. LeporeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Packer v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Giordano v. GiordanoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
- Morascini v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.