Legal Opinion
Bouley v. City of Norwich
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided July 30, 1991No. 9046PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.
The plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We hold that although there was no material fact in issue, the defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and, therefore, the court’s judgment must be reversed.1
The plaintiff was a police officer employed by the defendant. He was injured in the course of his employment when the police car he was operating was involved in a collision with another car. He received workers’ compensation benefits and $20,000 from the other driver’s insurance carrier, which was the limit of the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Jett v. DunlapSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Christy v. City of NewarkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1986
- Panaro v. Electrolux Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bouley v. City of NorwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Wright v. SmallwoodSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
- CNA Insurance v. ColmanConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
- Bouley v. City of NorwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Bouley v. City of NorwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.