Legal Opinion

Coppedge v. Travis

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided January 29, 2019No. AC40787PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBright, J.

The defendant dog owner, Curtis Travis, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff, Camila Coppedge, in this tort action, commenced pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 22-357, 1 commonly known as the dog bite statute. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) "[t]he evidence supports a finding that ... § 22-357 does not apply as the dog's conduct was innocent," and (2) "[t]he evidence does not support a finding of proximate cause." We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On the basis of the evidence presented at…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Malone v. SteinbergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
  2. Perricone v. PerriconeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
  3. Granniss v. WeberSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  4. Murphy v. BuonatoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  5. Murphy v. BuonatoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Wager v. MooreConnecticut Appellate Court · 2019
  2. Hill v. OSJ of Bloomfield, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
  3. Crouzet v. First Baptist Church of StoningtonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API