Legal Opinion
Michalski v. Hinz
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 10, 2007No. 27040, 27041PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRUENDEL, J.
In the late evening of July 9, 2001, two vessels collided on Candlewood Lake in New Fair-field and a civil action followed. All parties now appeal from the judgment of the trial court. In AC 27040, the defendant, Robert Hinz, claims that the court improperly (1) found him negligent due to his failure to pass port to port in violation of General Statutes § 15-131, (2) found him negligent due to his failure to sound his horn, (3) applied certain federal inland navigation rules, (4) declined to apply the doctrine of error in extremis and (5) denied his motion for a judgment of…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
- Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Development Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil & Fuel Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Malone v. SteinbergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Caruso v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Allison v. ManettaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Baranowski v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
- Cue Associates, LLC v. Cast Iron Associates, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Utica Mutual Insurance v. Precision Mechanical Services, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.