Skip to main content

Mulrooney v. Wambolt

Citations

  • 215 Conn. 211
  • 575 A.2d 996
  • 1990 Conn. LEXIS 182

How courts have described this case

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

  • decision on whether to impose sanction of excluding expert testimony within trial court’s discretion
  • defendant could not introduce expert at trial after claiming in interrogatory answers that “ ‘[n]o expert contemplated at this time’ ”
  • expert revaled [revealed] during jury selection by offeror who had given misleading responses to interrogatories
  • rules of statutory interpretation regarding the prospective or retroactive application of statutory enactments apply equally to amendments
  • Connecticut Supreme Court considered the merits of a ruling on a motion in limine prior to the 1996 adoption of Connecticut Practice Book § 15-3, adding motions in limine to the Connecticut civil rules
  • “[procedural statutes . . . ordinarily apply ‘retroactively to all actions whether pending or not at the time the statute . . . became effective, in the absence of any expressed intent to the contrary’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Shea

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.