Skip to main content

Elliot v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Citations

  • 229 Conn. 500
  • 642 A.2d 709
  • 1994 Conn. LEXIS 158

How courts have described this case

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

  • “[s]ubstantiai differences between the product liability act and its vetoed predecessor provide additional evidence that the legislature’s omission of ‘claimant’ from General Statutes § 52-572p was intentional”
  • \[w]e will not interpret a statute to have the effect of altering prior statutory or common law unless the language of the statute clearly expresses an intent to have such an effect\
  • ‘‘[w]e will not interpret a statute to have the effect of altering prior statutory or common law unless the language of the statute clearly expresses an intent to have such an effect’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Berdon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Elliot v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.