Cases

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION TO STATE COURT HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: Michael Briscoe, a co-Defendant, removed this case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Plaintiff now moves to remand the action to its original forum, the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven. The motion to remand [Doc. 16], which Briscoe opposes, has been extensive

OPINION AND ORDER William C. Lee, Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana This matter is before the court on the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants City of New Haven, Indiana, and Officer James Krueger on April 18, 2016 (DE 30). Plaintiff James Mudd filed a response in opposition to the motion on May 12, 2016 (DE 35) and Defendants filed a reply brief on May 23, 2016 (DE 36). For

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated August 6, 2014, as granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Mall at Smith Haven, LLC, E.W. Howell Co., Inc., and RF Paving Corp. which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assert

RULING ON MOTIONS OF DEFENDANT AND INTERVENORS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT HAIGHT, JR., Senior District Judge: In this action Plaintiff Michael Briscoe, an African-American firefighter employed *565by Defendant City of New Haven (“the City”), sues the City under Title VII of the CM Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. <

166 F.Supp.2d 636 (2001) Kenneth SMITH Plaintiff v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN, Officer Andrea Papa, Officer Lisa Wexler, Sargent R. Miller and Officer Christopher Perrone, in their individual and capacities, Defendants No. 3:99-CV-157 (EBB). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. August 20, 2001. *637

Opinion BORDEN, J. The sole issue in this appeal1 is whether a municipal defendant, sought to be held liable for breach of its statutory duty to maintain and repair local roadways under General Statutes § 13a-149,2 may seek *58indemnification from a third party who, the municipality allege

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge. Protesters have been living on the New Haven Green since October 2011 as part of a demonstration known as Occupy New Haven. Facing imminent eviction, eight Occupy members seek an injunction barring their removal from the Green, primarily on First Amendment grounds.1 Due

RULING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: Plaintiffs, Nancy Genn (the “Parent”) and Sarah Elizabeth (Katie) Genn (the “Student”), together bring this action against the Defendant New Haven Board of Education and several individuals who were a part of the New Haven school system. Plaintiffs bring suit pursuant to several statutes, including the Individuals with Disabilitie

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant William H. Doriss filed a complaint against the City of New Haven, the State of Connecticut, and thirty-three named individuals (including city officials, current and former state officials, and private persons), alleging that these defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with his arrest, prosecution, and conviction on two counts of neglecting to restrain an animal from injuring anot

411 F.Supp.2d 64 (2005) UNITED STATES, ex rel. Robert C. SMITH, M.D., Plaintiff, v. YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC, et al. Defendants. No. 3:02CV1205(PCD). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. August 25, 2005. *65 Craig Thomas Dickinson, Peter Burgoyne Prestley, Madsen, Prestley & Parenteau, LLC, Hartford, CT, Mary Ali

184 F.Supp.2d 498 (2001) Stanley YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. NEW HAVEN ADVOCATE, et al., Defendants. No. 2:00CV00086. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Big Stone Gap Division. August 10, 2001. *499 *500 Robert Stuart Collins, Adkins, Elkins & Hunnicutt, P.C., Robert Stuart Collins, Fle

Opinion VERTEFEUILLE, J. The principal issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, having accepted a remittitur with regard to one component of noneconomic damages in a negligence action, may nevertheless appeal the propriety of the trial court’s rulings with regard to other components of noneconomic damages. We also address the issue raised in the defendant’s cross appeal, namely, whether the tri

899 A.2d 542 (2006) 278 Conn. 500 Susan C. CAMPION et al. v. BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF the CITY OF NEW HAVEN et al. Nos. 17347, 17348. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued January 4, 2006. Decided June 6, 2006. *545 Barbara M. Schellenberg, with whom was Austin K. Wolf, Bridgeport, for the appe

163 F.Supp.2d 126 (2001) Richard and Marion ZEPPIERI, Plaintiffs v. NEW HAVEN PROVISION CO. et al, Defendants No. 3:01 CV 1110(CFD). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. August 31, 2001. *127 *128 *129 Joanne S. Faulkner, Law Offices of Joanne Faul

20-2115 (L) Yale New Haven Hosp. v. Becerra United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2021 Argued: September 22, 2021 Decided: December 19, 2022 Nos. 20-2115(L), 20-2151(XAP) YALE NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL,

761 A.2d 111 (2000) 335 N.J. Super. 111 David SMITH, Kimberly Smith, Frank Cracolici, Jesse Y. Harris and Marcelene Harris, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The FAIR HAVEN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, John M. Ridgeway and Donna M. Ridgeway, Defendants-Respondents. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued October 18, 2000. Decided November 13, 200

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), entered November 1, 1995, as denied his motion for partial summary judgment, granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and imposed sanctions on him for frivolous conduct. Ordered that the order is

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr