Legal Opinion
Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided August 8, 1989No. 13496PublishedCited by 155 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtArthur H. Healey, J.
This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiff, Cecelia Champagne, individually and on behalf of Wilfred Champagne as administratrix of his estate, for the injury and death of Wilfred Champagne as a result of his exposure to asbestos while employed by the General Dynamics Corporation, Electric Boat Division (Electric Boat) in Groton. The case began as an amendment, dated February 22,1980, to an existing multiparty complaint filed on behalf of past and present employees of Electric Boat. In the two counts of the amended complaint concerning the plaintiff, one sought compensatory…
2Cases cited94 opinions
- Sidney Roginsky v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- State v. KurvinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Daily v. New Britain Machine Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Catz v. RubensteinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Hopson v. St. Mary's HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by155 opinions
- Gurliacci v. MayerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Riley v. PresnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Berry v. LoiseauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- State v. PinnockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
150 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.