Legal Opinion
Doty v. Mucci
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided August 13, 1996No. 15380PublishedCited by 138 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNorcott, J.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly determined that the claim filed by the plaintiffs, Matthew W. Doty and Denise Doty, for reimbursement of certain containment costs pursuant to General Statutes § 22a.-4.52,1 was time barred. The *802plaintiffs appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Steve Mucci, doing business as Steve’s Oil Burning Service. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
For the purposes of this appeal, the following facts are not in dispute. On September 17,1988, the defendant installed an oil tank at the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Burns v. Hartford HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Miller v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- D.H.R. Construction Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Daily v. New Britain Machine Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by138 opinions
- Gupta v. New Britain General HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Hertz Corp. v. Federal InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Dowling v. Finley Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Chotkowski v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
133 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.