Gaudino v. Town of East Hartford

How courts have described this case

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

• finding summary judgment proper where plaintiffs brought claims under Section 7-465 but did not bring an action against any employees, as required by the statute
• finding summary judgment proper where plaintiffs brought claims under Section 7-465 but did not bring an action against any employees, as required by the statute
• stating: “They were on notice that the defendant believed something was missing from the complaint. A review of the complaint and the governing law would have revealed the use of the incorrect statute.”
• stating: \They were on notice that the defendant believed something was missing from the complaint. A review of the complaint and the governing law would have revealed the use of the incorrect statute.\
• motion for summary judgment may be used to challenge legal sufficiency of complaint
• ‘‘Section 52-557n allows an action to be brought directly against a municipality for the negligent actions of its agents. Section 7-465 allows an action for indemni- fication against a municipality in conjunction with a common-law action against a municipal employee.’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).