Legal Opinion
Daigle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided August 7, 2001No. SC 16435PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ZAKELLA, J.
The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court correctly granted the motion in limine of the defendant, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, thereby precluding the plaintiff, Edward Daigle, from introducing certain of his income tax returns into evidence in order to establish his damages claim.
The Appellate Court set forth the following facts and relevant procedural background. “The plaintiff was involved in two separate automobile accidents that occurred on June 5, 1993, and September 16, 1995.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kraus v. NewtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Esaw v. FriedmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Daigle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Anastasia v. Beautiful You Hair Designs, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Bradley v. RandallConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Viera v. CohenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Murray v. TaylorConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- DeVito v. SchwartzConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Hicks v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- State v. MoodyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.