Calig v. Schrank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “proximate cause cannot be premised on such indefinite assumptions or contingencies that the causal relationship at issue is rendered remote and speculative”
• \[i]t is hornbook law that to be entitled to damages in contract a plaintiff must establish a causal relation between the breach and the damages flowing from that breach\
• ‘‘[i]t is hornbook law that to be entitled to damages in contract a plaintiff must establish a causal relationship between the breach and the damages flowing from that breach’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• West Haven Sound Development Corp. v. City of West Haven
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-05-03· cited 81×
• Graham v. Texasgulf, Inc.
  D. Connecticut· 1987-06-18· cited 14×
• New Milford v. Standard Demolition Services, Inc.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2022-04-26· cited 5×
• Davis v. Fitzpatrick's, Inc.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 1985-11-12· cited 3×
• Levinson v. Westport National Bank
  D. Connecticut· 2012-09-28· cited 2×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Pappas v. Pappas
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1973-01-18· cited 70×
• Berkley v. Berkley
  Supreme Court of Missouri· 1952-03-10· cited 18×
• Drazin v. Drazin
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1968-11-21· cited 11×

Other cases named Calig v. Schrank

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Calig v. Schrank
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-06-06