Brennan v. Burger King Corporation

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Butler

    255 Conn. 828 (Conn. 2001)   Cited 29 times
    Affirming Appellate Court's judgment reversing conviction on due process grounds due to improper comments by Pepper during closing argument

    The thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court properly resolved the issues in this certified appeal. A further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 244 Conn. 204, 206, 707 A.2d 30 (1998); Murphy v. Buonato, 241 Conn. 319, 321-22, 696 A.2d 320 (1997).

  2. Biller Associates v. Route 156 Realty Co.

    252 Conn. 400 (Conn. 2000)   Cited 31 times

    The thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court properly resolved the issues in this certified appeal. A further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 244 Conn. 204, 206, 707 A.2d 30 (1998); Murphy v. Buonato, 241 Conn. 319, 321-22, 696 A.2d 320 (1997).

  3. State v. Cox

    251 Conn. 54 (Conn. 1999)   Cited 10 times

    Having examined the record on appeal, studied the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. See, e.g., Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 244 Conn. 204, 206, 707 A.2d 30 (1998); Murphy v. Buonato, 241 Conn. 319, 321-22, 696 A.2d 320 (1997).

  4. Haymond v. Statewide Grievance Committee

    247 Conn. 436 (Conn. 1999)   Cited 18 times

    The issues presented were resolved properly in the trial court's opinion. It would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 244 Conn. 204, 206, 707 A.2d 30 (1998); Lizotte v. Welker, 244 Conn. 156, 158, 709 A.2d 1 (1998); Murphy v. Buonato, 241 Conn. 319, 321-22, 696 A.2d 320 (1997); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 236 Conn. 27, 30, 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

  5. Bishop's Corner Assoc. Ltd. Part. v. Ser. Mdse. Co.

    718 A.2d 966 (Conn. 1998)   Cited 4 times
    In Bishop's Corner Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc., 247 Conn. 192, 195, 718 A.2d 966 (1998), the Supreme Court adopted the reasoning set forth in the Superior Court's decision: "[T]he appropriate test to apply is whether items of `substantial value,' functionally, were left on the premises at the time this action was brought.

    The issue of whether the defendant vacated the premises was resolved properly in the trial court's opinion. It would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 244 Conn. 204, 206, 707 A.2d 30 (1998); Lizotte v. Welker, 244 Conn. 156, 158, 709 A.2d 1 (1998); Murphy v. Buonato, 241 Conn. 319, 321-22, 696 A.2d 320 (1997); Gajewski v. Pavelo, 236 Conn. 27, 30, 670 A.2d 318 (1996).

  6. Jones v. Kramer

    72 Conn. App. 789 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 7 times
    In Jones, we rejected a claim that only payments for medical bills specifically included in the jury's verdict may be deducted as collateral sources and determined that "§ 52-225a requires the reduction of economic damages by the total of all collateral source payments received, less the total of premiums paid to secure the collateral sources."

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 46 Conn. App. 76, 82-83, 698 A.2d 364 (1997), aff'd, 244 Conn. 204, 707 A.2d 30 (1998). To follow the intent of tort reform faithfully without impermissibly diminishing an economic damages award to the plaintiff, the court, before making any reduction in economic damages for collateral source payments, must know specifically what economic damages were awarded by the jury.

  7. Suits v. Kohl's Dept. Stores

    2011 Ct. Sup. 19261 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011)

    Medicare payments for which rights of subrogation exist are not collateral sources. General Statutes § 52-225a(a)(2)(A): Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 46 Conn.App. 76, 84, 698 A.2d (1997), aff'd 244 Conn. 204, 707 A.3d 30 (1997). Medicare subrogation rights are calculated under a formula in 42 C.F.R. § 411.37. "Medicare's recovery is limited when the conditional Medicare payments that the beneficiary received are less than the amount obtained as a result of a judgment or settlement from a liable tortfeasor or its insurer.