Legal Opinion
Barnett v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided September 9, 2013No. Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-1037 (VLB)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANT UI’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. # 80] OF THE COURT’S MEMORANDUM OF DECISION [Dkt. # 75]
VANESSA L. BRYANT, District Judge.
I. Background
The Plaintiff, Judy Prescott Barnett, claims that she was exposed to harmful *596radiation as a result of high levels of electromagnetic fields (“EMFs”) emitted from power lines on her property. She filed the instant diversity action seeking damages from the United Illuminating Company (“UI”), Northeast Utilities (“NU”), Northeast Utility Service Company (“ÑUSCO”), and Connecticut Light and Power Company (“CL & P”),…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Bruce C. Shrader v. Csx Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Michael Ikelionwu v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Pestey v. CushmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Carlos Fernando Reixach Murey, as administrator of the Estate of Carlos Lens Fernandez v. City of Chickasaw, Michael E. Reynolds, Cynthia Robinson Burt, Arellia Taylor, and George TaylorSupreme Court of Alabama · 2023
- Emerick v. ConnecticutDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2021
- Staton v. HolzbachDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2021
- Williams v. HartfordDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2020