Legal Opinion
Himmelstein v. Bernard
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided December 4, 2012No. AC 30091PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRUENDEL, J.
The defendants Sergeant James F. Bernard and the town of Windsor (town),1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion for *448summary judgment.2 Specifically, the defendants claim that the court erred in concluding that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar the plaintiffs action in nuisance.3 We agree with the defendants and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Our Supreme Court set forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. “On Tuesday, July 20, 2004, at approximately 6:45 p.m., the plaintiff was operating his bicycle in the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. AillonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Kelly v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Tirozzi v. Shelby InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- HIMMELSTEIN v. Town of WindsorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2012
- Singhaviroj v. Board of EducationConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Doran v. First Connecticut Capital, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- C & H Management, LLC v. City of SheltonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- Mulero v. Board of EducationConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- Buck v. BerlinConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016