Legal Opinion
Praisner v. State
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 30, 2019No. AC40784PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtElgo, J.
The defendant, the state of Connecticut, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion for summary judgment in this indemnification action brought by the plaintiff, Martin J. Praisner, Jr., pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53-39a. 1
On appeal, the state contends that the court improperly concluded that the action was not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 2 We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The facts are not in dispute. At all relevant times, the state maintained a special police force for Eastern Connecticut State…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Horton v. MeskillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Miller v. EganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit DistrictSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Murphy v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Figueroa v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021
- Praisner v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2019
- Praisner v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2020