Legal Opinion
Amore v. Frankel
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 25, 1994No. 14689PublishedCited by 79 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKatz, J.
The dispositive issue before the court is whether the trial court correctly granted a motion to *360dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The basis of the trial court’s ruling was that the plaintiff’s claim did not come within the exception to sovereign immunity provided by General Statutes §§ 13a-144 and lSb-30,1 because the plaintiff had failed to allege that the repair and maintenance of the driveway on which he had fallen, which was located on the campus of the University of Connecticut and was not within the “state *361highway system,”2 were the responsibility of the commissioner of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Gurliacci v. MayerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. JowdySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Sanzone v. Board of Police CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- White v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Barde v. Board of TrusteesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Peabody, N.E., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Conboy v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Ferreira v. PringleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Antinerella v. RiouxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Serrano v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.