Legal Opinion
Going v. Cromwell Fire District
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 15, 1970PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCotter, J.
The defendant the Aetna Insurance Company, the insurer of the liability of the Cromwell fire district, claims that compensation due the plaintiff for an injury should be prorated between it and the second injury and compensation assurance fund pursuant to § 31-310 of the General Statutes, the pertinent portion of which is printed in the footnote.1 This section of the statute originated in the 1967 session of the General Assembly as Public Act No. 842, § 17. The workmen’s compensation commissioner made a finding and pro forma award in favor of the plaintiff. The facts found have been treated…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Powers v. Hotel Bond Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
- Klapproth v. TurnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Lee v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
- Charlton Press, Inc. v. SullivanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1965
- State v. FaroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Civardi v. City of NorwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Mayfield v. GOSHEN VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INC.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- Trinkley v. Ella Grasso Regional CenterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Hardt v. Town of WatertownConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- McNulty v. City of StamfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.