Haynes v. City of Middletown
| Citation | 309 Conn. 919,70 A.3d 1067 |
| Parties | Tracey HAYNES et al. v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN. |
| Decision Date | 25 July 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
William F. Gallagher and Hugh D. Hughes, New Haven, in support of the petition.
Matthew Dallas Gordon, West Hartford, Ruth Kurien, Nicholas N. Ouellette, West Hartford, and Dierdre Dwyer Stokes, in opposition.
The plaintiffs' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 142 Conn.App. 720, 66 A.3d 899, is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court judgment setting aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs should be affirmed on the ground that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the identifiable person, imminent harm exception to governmental immunity?”
NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Haynes v. City of Middletown
...the plaintiffs had not satisfied the identifiable person, imminent harm exception to governmental immunity?” Haynes v. Middletown, 309 Conn. 919, 919–20, 70 A.3d 1067 (2013). We conclude that, on the basis of the plaintiffs' evidence, a properly instructed jury reasonably could conclude tha......
-
Haynes v. City of Middletown
...that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the identifiable person, imminent harm exception to governmental immunity?"Haynes v. Middletown, 309 Conn. 919, 919-20, 70 A.3d 1067 (2013). We conclude that, on the basis of the plaintiffs' evidence, a properly instructed jury reasonably could conclude......