Legal Opinion
Wilson v. R.F.K. Corp.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided September 5, 1989No. 7516PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.
The plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of a battery committed by the named defendant’s bartender at its *549restaurant. From the judgment rendered by the court in favor of the plaintiff, the named defendant has appealed.1 The defendant claims that the trial court committed the following errors: (1) it allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint after he had rested his case and the defendant had moved for dismissal; (2) it found a causal connection between the battery and the plaintiffs injuries without sufficient medical evidence; (3) it…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Struckman v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Jonap v. SilverConnecticut Appellate Court · 1983
- Pelletier v. BilbilesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Cardona v. ValentinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Bates v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Franc v. Bethel Holding Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Eisenbach v. DowneyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
- All American Pools, Inc. v. LatoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1997
- See v. Bridgeport R. C. Diocesan Corp., No. Cv 93-0300948s (Jul. 31, 1997)Connecticut Superior Court · 1997