Legal Opinion

Mulrooney v. Wambolt

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 5, 1990No. 13893PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShea, J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the defendant from calling an expert witness to testify because of the defendant’s failure to disclose timely that she intended to call the witness as an expert. The plaintiff, Katherine M. Mulrooney, brought an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident involving the defendant, Christie Wambolt. During the discovery procedures, the defendant failed to disclose in her answers to the plaintiff’s interrogatories that she intended to call Franklin Robinson,…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  3. Darak v. DarakSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  4. Jones Destruction, Inc. v. UpjohnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
  5. Edward William Hull, A/K/A Edward Hull v. Eaton Corporation Edward William Hull Travelers Insurance Company v. Eaton CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Berry v. LoiseauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  2. Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  3. Millbrook Owners Ass'n v. Hamilton StandardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  4. In Re Jorden R.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
  5. Rosick v. Equipment Maintenance & Service, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1993

25 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