Legal Opinion

Fonck v. Town of Stratford

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided January 22, 1991No. 9049PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.

The plaintiffs1 appeal from the trial court’s judgment for the defendants. They claim that the trial court failed (1) to give a Secondino charge2 regarding one of the defendants, Thomas Knowles,3 (2) to allow the introduction of depositions into evidence, and (3) to give a cautionary instruction concerning an improper closing argument made by the defendants’ counsel. We agree with the plaintiffs’ third claim and therefore reverse. Because our decision regarding the third claim is dispositive of the case and the other two claims may not arise again in a new trial; see State v. Plourde, 208…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
  2. State v. HuffConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
  3. State v. PlourdeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  4. Bryar v. WilsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
  5. Frohlich v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
  2. Murray v. TaylorConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  3. Wallenta v. MoscowitzConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  4. Palkimas v. LavineConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
  5. State v. SinvilConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003

8 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