Legal Opinion

Manning v. Barenz

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided May 14, 1991No. 9156PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpallone, J.

The plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for the *593defendants. The trial court concluded that the defendant municipal employees and the defendant municipality are immune from liability pursuant to Connecticut’s “recreational use statute,” General Statutes § 52-557g. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim (1) that the trial court improperly ruled that General Statutes § 52-557g barred the plaintiffs’ claims raised in negligence and nuisance, and (2) that the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity. We affirm the judgment…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Sega v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Muha v. United Oil Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  3. Genco v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1986
  4. Watson v. City of OmahaNebraska Supreme Court · 1981
  5. McCord v. Ohio Division of Parks & RecreationOhio Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Manning v. BarenzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  2. Gauthier v. Town of FairfieldConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
  3. Voight v. Gazdik, No. Cv 88 0247250 (Feb. 13, 1992)Connecticut Superior Court · 1992
  4. Burke v. Town of FairfieldConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
  5. Garcia v. Town of Wolcott, No. 010614 (Feb. 4, 1992)Connecticut Superior Court · 1992

2 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