Daley v. Wesleyan University

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Finan

    82 Conn. App. 222 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 10 times

    s final determination of guilt or liability: Barrett v. Danbury Hospital, 232 Conn. 242, 256 n. 6, 654 A.2d 748 (1995) (upholding exclusion of opinion on reasonableness of plaintiff's fear); Kowalewski v. Mutual Loan Co., 159 Conn. 76, 80, 266 A.2d 379 (1970) (upholding exclusion of opinion on whether walkway was reasonably safe for use); State v. Donahue, 141 Conn. 656, 667, 109 A.2d 364 (1954) (upholding exclusion of opinion on whether defendant acted in wilful, deliberate and premeditated manner), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 926, 75 S.Ct. 775, 99 L.Ed. 1257 (1955); Witty v. Planning Zoning Commission, 66 Conn. App. 387, 392, 784 A.2d 1011 (upholding exclusion of opinion as to intended meaning of term in ordinance), cert. denied, 258 Conn. 950, 788 A.2d 100 (2001); Daley v. Wesleyan Univ., 63 Conn. App. 119, 137-38, 772 A.2d 725 (upholding exclusion of opinion that "tenured faculty's decision not to recommend the plaintiff for tenure was made arbitrarily or capriciously"), cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930, 776 A.2d 1145 (2001); see State v. Vilalastra, supra, 207 Conn. 39, 43. Each of these cases held that the testimony was inadmissible as an opinion on an ultimate issue in the case.

  2. Hayes v. Decker

    66 Conn. App. 293 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 12 times

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Daley v. Wesleyan University, 63 Conn. App. 119, 135-36, 772 A.2d 725, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930, 776 A.2d 1145 (2001). "An expert witness ordinarily may not express an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact, which must be decided by the trier of fact. . . . An expert may, however, give an opinion on an ultimate issue where the trier, in order to make intelligent findings, needs expert assistance on the precise question on which it must pass."

  3. J.D.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. Sarjac Partners, LLC

    No. HHDCV146048285 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jul. 13, 2017)

    The elements of a breach of contract claim must be proven by the preponderance of the evidence. See Waicunas v. Macari, 151 Conn. 134, 137, 193 A.2d 709 (1963); see also Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz, 77 Conn.App. 462, 471, 823 A.2d 438 (2003); Daley v. Wesleyan University, 63 Conn.App. 119, 131-32, 772 A.2d 725, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930, 776 A.2d 1145 (2001). The rules governing contract formation are well settled.

  4. Crosskey Architects, LLC v. Poko Partners, LLC

    No. HHDCV156056962 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jun. 21, 2017)

    The elements of a breach of contract claim must be proven by the preponderance of the evidence. See Waicunas v. Macari, 151 Conn. 134, 137, 193 A.2d 709 (1963); see also Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz, 77 Conn.App. 462, 471, 823 A.2d 438 (2003); Daley v. Wesleyan University, 63 Conn.App. 119, 131-32, 772 A.2d 725, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930, 776 A.2d 1145 (2001). The rules governing contract formation are well settled.

  5. Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Lapuma

    CV156018031S (Conn. Super. Ct. Jun. 9, 2017)

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Daley v. Wesleyan University, 63 Conn.App. 119, 135-36, 772 A.2d 725, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930, 776 A.2d 1145 (2001). Connecticut Code of Evidence, ยง 7-2 provides: " A witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, education or otherwise may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise concerning scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, if the testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue."

  6. Morey v. Lallier

    No. HHDCV156063388 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 5, 2017)

    Breach of contract is to be proven by the preponderance of the evidence. See Waicunas v. Macari, 151 Conn. 134, 137, 193 A.2d 709 (1963); see also Colliers, Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Schwartz, 77 Conn.App. 462, 471, 823 A.2d 438 (2003); Daley v. Wesleyan University, 63 Conn.App. 119, 131-32, 772 A.2d 725, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930, 776 A.2d 1145 (2001). The rules governing contract formation are well settled.

  7. Hayes v. Yale-New Haven Hosp

    48 Conn. Supp. 311 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001)   Cited 3 times

    Although the court does not find that the human resources manual, the redesign guidelines or the statements of Lapenta supply any additional contract terms, the plaintiff clearly had a contract of employment at will with Yale-New Haven Hospital. The plaintiff claimed in paragraph 22d of count one that she had a right to expect that the employment relationship would be governed by the concept of good faith and fair dealing that is implicit in every contract. That is a proposition that likely is true; see, e.g., Daley v. Wesleyan University, 63 Conn. App. 119, 127, 772 A.2d 725, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930, 776 A.2d 1145 (2001); but for which the plaintiff provides no legal support. It has not been referred to separately in any of the plaintiff's legal memoranda.