Cimmino v. Marcoccia
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FOTI, J.
The defendants Christina Ghio and Robert Teitelman appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to dismiss counts seven through ten of the eighth amended complaint filed by the plaintiff, Andrew Cimmino, for want of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that the claims presented in counts seven, eight, nine, and ten of that complaint (1) were not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and (2) were not subject to statutory immunity pursuant to General Statutes § 4-165. We agree that the claims…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miller v. EganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Shay v. RossiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Spring v. ConstantinoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Somers v. HillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Sullins v. RodriguezSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mangiafico v. Town of FarmingtonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
- Devine v. FusaroConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020