Vanguard Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Bogan

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).