Murray v. Frankel
Connecticut Appellate Court
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
- Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Sanzone v. Board of Police CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- White v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Morico v. CoxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Filippi v. SullivanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Curry v. BurnsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Serrano v. BurnsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Salgado v. Commissioner of TransportationConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Filippi v. SullivanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.