Legal Opinion

Hibner v. Bruening

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided August 5, 2003No. AC 22808PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

FLYNN, J.

The plaintiffs, Barbara L. Hibner, Samuel Hibner and Stephen Ayer, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their action against the defendants, Helen J. Bruening and Donald J. Bruening. This case arose out of an automobile negligence action brought by the plaintiffs.1 The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of ineffective service of process because the judicial marshal, Joseph D. Nardini, executed constructive service rather than in hand or abode service at their address at 24 Rustic Lane in Madison. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. RodgersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  2. State v. MirandaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  3. Coppola v. CoppolaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  4. State v. MirandaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  5. Vitti v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Myers v. City of HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  2. Fine Homebuilders, Inc. v. PerroneConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
  3. Weihing v. DodsworthConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
  4. Pagett v. Westport Precision, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  5. Alldred v. AlldredConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011

7 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