Legal Opinion

Murray v. Frankel

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided June 29, 1993No. 11392PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.

The plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, the com*753missioner of transportation, following the granting of the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of adequate notice under the defective highway statute, General Statutes § 13a-144.1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiffs filed a two count revised complaint on December 2, 1991. The first count alleged that at approximately 10:30 p.m. on August 5, 1990, the named plaintiff was standing on the northern edge of Clintonville Road, also known as Route 22, in…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  2. Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  3. Sanzone v. Board of Police CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  4. White v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  5. Morico v. CoxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Filippi v. SullivanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
  2. Curry v. BurnsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
  3. Serrano v. BurnsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
  4. Salgado v. Commissioner of TransportationConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
  5. Filippi v. SullivanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003

9 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