Cases

857 A.2d 952 (2004) 85 Conn.App. 455 Stephen G. DENT v. Allen F. LOVEJOY et al. No. 23009. Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued March 29, 2004. Decided October 12, 2004. *955 Michael R. Pontrelli, pro hac vice, with whom was James R. Fogarty, Greenwich, for the appellant-appellee (plaint

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 85 Conn. App. 455 (AC 23009), is denied.

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correct

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

148 Conn. 94 (1961) DENT-CRAFT LABORATORIES OF CONNECTICUT, INC. v. JOHN L. SULLIVAN, TAX COMMISSIONER Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued November 1, 1960. Decided January 24, 1961. BALDWIN, C. J., KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JS. Howard R. Matzkin, with whom was Alvin Rosenbaum, for the plaintiff. Walter T. Faulkner, assistan

CONNECTICUT INTERLOCAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY v. CHRISTOPHER JACKSON ET AL. (SC 19946) Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js. Syllabus Pursuant to the alternative liability doctrine, when the conduct of two or more actors is tortious and it is proven that the plaintiff’s injuries have been caused by only one of those actors but it is unclear which one, the burden of proving causation shifts

Bieluch, J. This appeal presents the sole issue of whether a certified copy of a judgment, which is later recorded on the land records of the town where the affected real estate is situated, is sufficient to constitute the recording of a certificate of judgment lien pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1983) § 49-44.1 We conclude that a certified copy of a judgment is not sufficient for the purpose

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

TREMONT PUBLIC ADVISORS, LLC v. CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY AUTHORITY (SC 20119) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff public affairs firm sought to recover damages from the defen- dant, a quasi-public agency responsible for providing solid waste dis- posal and recycling services to numerous Connecticut municipalities, alleging that it had engaged in certain anticompetitive pra

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correct

390 F.Supp.2d 1341 (2005) Linda DENT, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF NEW YORK, Defendant. No. 5:03CV175 (DF). United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division. May 16, 2005. *1342 Manley F. Brown, Jarome E. Gautreaux, Warren C. Grice, Gerald Spencer Mullis, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff. Jo