Legal Opinion

Fukelman v. City of Middletown

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided May 14, 1985No. 2235PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFracasse, J.

The plaintiff instituted this action against the defendant city pursuant to General Statutes § 13a-149 for injuries sustained as a result of a fall upon a defective sidewalk. The trial court rendered judgment awarding the plaintiff damages plus costs. The defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court erred: (1) in concluding that the defendant had con*31structive notice of the defect; (2) in concluding that the defect was the sole proximate cause of the injuries; (3) in accepting the testimony of the plaintiff’s doctor; and (4) in awarding costs.

The first, second and third claims of error…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  2. Appliances, Inc. v. YostSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  3. Verrastro v. SivertsenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  4. Damora v. Christ-JanerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  5. Murphy v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Ruhl v. Town of FairfieldConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
  2. Borkowski v. SachetiConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  3. Bowman v. WilliamsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
  4. Giannitti v. City of StamfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
  5. Nicefaro v. City of New HavenConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009

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