Legal Opinion
Murphy v. Buonato
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided July 23, 1996No. 14053PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.
The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to General Statutes § 22-3571 to recover damages for *240personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s2 dog while it was in the plaintiffs care and custody. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.
On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly determined that the plaintiff was not a “keeper” of a dog within the meaning of § 22-357. The defendant further claims that keepers of dogs cannot recover under the statute because keepers do not fall within the class…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- State v. GeislerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. DubnoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Malone v. SteinbergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Caldor, Inc. v. HeffernanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Weisman v. KasparSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Tryon v. Town of North BranfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Stokes v. LyddyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Murphy v. BuonatoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Weyel v. CataniaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
- Mann v. ReganConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.