Dontigney v. Roberts
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
2Per curiam
The pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey I. Dontigney, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, Clinton Roberts. The plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court acted improperly in concluding that his action was barred under the doctrine of res judicata and, therefore, should not have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In reviewing the plaintiffs claim that the court acted improperly in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, we recognize that “[i]n deciding a…
3Cases cited3 opinions
- Jackson v. R. G. Whipple, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Orselet v. DeMatteoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- City of Milford v. AndresakisConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
4Cited by7 opinions
- Tanasi v. CitiMortgage, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2017
- Zanoni v. LynchConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- McHenry v. NusbaumConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Barnett v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2012
- Barnett v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2013
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.