Legal Opinion

Prescott v. City of Meriden

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 31, 2005No. SC 17134PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BORDEN, J.

One of the three exceptions to a municipal employee’s qualified immunity for discretionary acts is “where the circumstances make it apparent to the public officer that his or her failure to act would likely subject an identifiable person to imminent harm . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101, 108, 708 A.2d 937 (1998). We have extended that exception beyond identifiable individuals “to narrowly defined identified classes of foreseeable victims.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The sole issue in this certified appeal is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Burns v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  2. Purzycki v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  3. Dilullo v. JosephSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  4. Prescott v. City of MeridenConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
  5. Prescott v. City of MeridenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Doe v. PetersenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  2. Grady v. Town of SomersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
  3. Durrant v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF HARTFORDSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  4. Gurski v. Rosenblum and Filan, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
  5. Strycharz v. CadySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2016

12 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