Legal Opinion
Hamernick v. Bach
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided July 3, 2001No. AC 19811; AC 19812PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FLYNN, J.
The defendant1 Gerard E. Bach appeals from the judgments of the trial court rendered after the denial of his motions to set aside the verdicts in favor of plaintiffs Judith Carney and Joy Hamernick in these consolidated personal injury actions.2 The main issue in these appeals is whether General Statutes § 52-225d prohibits a court from listing on the verdict form more than the two specified categories of economic damages and noneconomic damages. The defendant also raises, but only as to the first of the two underlying actions, Hamernick v. Bach, the issue of whether the court…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ardoline v. KeeganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- In Re Appeal of DattiloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
- Freedman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
- Munson v. AtwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Marchetti v. RamirezSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Wasko v. FarleyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- State v. MadoreConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Atkin v. MarkoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- Lingenheld v. Desjardins Woodworking, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Patterson v. Meyer, No. Cv98 035 70 52 (Jul. 17, 2002)Connecticut Superior Court · 2002