Prescott v. City of Meriden
Supreme Court of Connecticut
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
- Burns v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Purzycki v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Dilullo v. JosephSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Prescott v. City of MeridenConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Prescott v. City of MeridenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
3Cited by17 opinions
- Doe v. PetersenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Grady v. Town of SomersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Durrant v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF HARTFORDSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Gurski v. Rosenblum and Filan, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Strycharz v. CadySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2016
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.