Legal Opinion

Relaford v. Rawana, No. Cv99-0266281s (May 19, 2000)

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided May 19, 2000No. CV99-0266281SUnpublished

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 113

Before this court is the defendants motion for summary judgment. The issue in dispute to resolve is whether the defendant is entitled to summary judgment. Because material facts are at issue regarding whether the operator of the leased vehicle was an. authorized driver, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Facts CT Page 6090

On January 27, 1999, the plaintiffs, Tyrese Relaford, Troy Kelly, and Jevon Langley, filed a complaint alleging that they sustained injuries as a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
  2. Burns v. Hartford HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
  3. Batick v. SeymourSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  4. Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  5. HLO Land Ownership Associates Ltd. Partnership v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999

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