Legal Opinion

Mulligan v. Rioux

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 28, 1994No. 14648PublishedCited by 111 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKatz, J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether the defendants, detectives Robert Rioux and Gerald Myers of the East Hartford police department,1 are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law and, therefore, are immune from the common law malicious prosecution claims and federal civil rights claim brought by the plaintiff, Arthur Mulligan, the director of the East Hartford department of public works. After the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on each claim and the trial court accepted the verdict, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment…

2Cases cited59 opinions

  1. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Franks v. DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Malley v. BriggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

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

3Cited by111 opinions

  1. Tallmadge Bros. v. Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
  2. Binette v. SaboSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  3. Gateway Co. v. DiNoiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  4. Purzycki v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  5. Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. TagerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008

106 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