Legal Opinion

Nolan v. Borkowski

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 15, 1988No. 13236PublishedCited by 233 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHull, J.

The dispositive issue in this case is whether the named plaintiff, Wendy Nolan, submitted proof of the individual defendants’ intent to injure her sufficient to resist the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground of the exclusivity of the workers’ compensation benefits available to her for those injuries. We agree with the trial court that she failed to raise an issue of material fact as to such intent and therefore we find no error in the court’s granting of the motion for summary judgment.

Wendy Nolan1 brought this action against Alan Borkowski, Larry Przybylski, Raymond M. Pons…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  2. United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
  3. Batick v. SeymourSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  4. Strada v. Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
  5. D.H.R. Construction Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980

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

3Cited by233 opinions

  1. Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1992
  2. State v. GogginSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  3. Iddings v. Mee-LeeHawaii Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Ruddock v. BurrowesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  5. Tryon v. Town of North BranfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000

228 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