Legal Opinion
Amore v. Frankel
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided November 24, 1992No. 10677PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCretella, J.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether a complaint that alleges facts sufficient to support a claim under General Statutes § lSa-1441 eliminates the preclusive effect of sovereign immunity. The plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of the action. We reverse the judgment in part and remand the case for further proceedings.
The plaintiffs, Alan and Ellen Amore, filed a two count complaint against Emil Frankel, the state commissioner of transportation. In count one, they claimed that the state owed them a duty to maintain the roads and sidewalks on the Storrs campus of the…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Gurliacci v. MayerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Horton v. MeskillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Sanzone v. Board of Police CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- White v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Barde v. Board of TrusteesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Amore v. FrankelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Discover Leasing, Inc. v. MurphyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Murray v. FrankelConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of DarienConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
- In re Jennifer G.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1992
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.