Legal Opinion

Salaman v. City of Waterbury

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided February 4, 1997No. 14709PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoti, J.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court improperly granted the named defendant’s1 motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The plaintiff argues that, as a matter of law, the trial court improperly rendered judgment notwithstanding the verdict on a ground never presented by the defendant city of Waterbury (city) in its motion for a directed verdict. He claims that under our rules of practice, and as a matter of constitutional law, the trial court was procedurally barred from acting as it did. As an alternative ground for reversal, the…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Petyan v. EllisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
  2. Berry v. LoiseauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  3. Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. LarsenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  4. A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  5. Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HairstonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Gagne v. VaccaroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  3. Kurti v. BeckerConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
  4. Salaman v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  5. Segreto v. City of BristolConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002

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

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

Powered by the Exa API