Legal Opinion
Merola v. Burns
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided May 4, 1990No. 8031PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBorden, J.
The plaintiffs1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court following the court’s granting of motions for directed verdict filed by the defendants.2 The plaintiffs claim that the court erred in directing the verdict and in making two evidentiary rulings. We find no error.
On July 18,1983, the plaintiff fell at the intersection of Oakly Street and Frontage Road in New Haven. Oakly Street, a town road, runs in a generally north-south direction. Frontage Road, a state highway, runs generally east and west. Oakly Street, east of its intersection with Frontage Road, leads to an eastbound ramp…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Petyan v. EllisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Morico v. CoxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
- Ozmun v. BurnsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- Kurtz v. Morse Oil Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Berry v. LoiseauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Munson v. United Technologies Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Coble v. MaloneyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Zanoni v. HudonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Williams v. ChameidesConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.