In re the Tutorship of D. K.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that either of plaintiffs alternative claims of highway defect for failure to repair or maintain or design defect legally could sustain verdict
• explaining, in dictum, that § 52-216a, as interpreted by this court in Peck, “bars the reduction of [a] jury [verdict] by amounts received from pretrial settlements unless the trial court finds the verdict excessive as a matter of law [in light of those settlement amounts]”
• \[i]t is a well established principle that arguments cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief\ [internal quotation marks omitted]
• “[i]t is a well established principle that arguments cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief’ [internal quotation marks omitted]
• interrogatories in single cause of action for highway defect properly stated both design defect and defect in repair as basis for verdict
• interrogatories in single cause of action for highway defect properly stated both design defect and defect in repair as basis for verdict

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).