Legal Opinion
Dolnack v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided March 29, 1994No. 12117PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.
In this negligence action, the plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court (1) granting the named defendant’s motion for summary judgment,1 thereby rejecting the plaintiff’s claim that the named defendant should be estopped from raising the statute of limitations by special defense.
The following facts are relevant to this appeal. On September 1,1989, a commuter train collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle at a railroad crossing in Danbury. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff sustained injuries. On January 10,1991, the plaintiff instituted this negligence action against the…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Nevada v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Strada v. Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- D.H.R. Construction Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Guthrie v. North Carolina State Ports AuthoritySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Telesco v. TelescoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit DistrictSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Gordon v. HNS MANAGEMENT CO., INC.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Slainte Investments Ltd. Partnership v. JeffreyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2015
- Starkweather v. HelenConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Ruisi v. O'SULLIVANConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.