Legal Opinion
Trotta v. Town of Branford
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided January 21, 1992No. 9998PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNorcott, J.
The named plaintiff, Kim I. Trotta (plaintiff), appeals following the granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. She claims that the court improperly granted the motion because it failed to find that a claimed design defect in a town road was within the ambit of General Statutes § 13a-149,1 one of this jurisdiction’s highway defect statutes. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
The following undisputed facts are relevant to the disposition of this appeal. The plaintiff served notice on the defendant and brought this action, pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-149, alleging that…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
- Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Connell v. ColwellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Burns v. Hartford HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Batick v. SeymourSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- New Milford Savings Bank v. RoinaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
- Field v. KearnsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Cortes v. CottonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. HirschfeldConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.