Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Colucci v. Pinette

185 Conn. 483 (Conn. 1981)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Colucci v. Pinette

32 Citing cases

  1. Holbrook v. Casazza

    204 Conn. 336 (Conn. 1987)   Cited 80 times
    Finding that the refusal to retract a false statement “might be relevant” to the defendant's mental state when there was substantial evidence of “animus” and the defendant's “disregard of the probable falsity” at the time of the statement

    This court has recognized that a general verdict for one party raises a presumption that the jury found every issue in favor of "`the prevailing party.'" Alfano v. Insurance Center of Torrington, 203 Conn. 607, 613, 525 A.2d 1338 (1987); Finley v. Aetna Life Casualty Co., 202 Conn. 190, 202, 520 A.2d 208 (1987); Colucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483, 489-90, 441 A.2d 575 (1981). Thus, we must uphold the jury's findings of falsity if the evidence is sufficient in respect to any of the defamatory statements made by the defendants. Applying the ordinary standard of appellate review, we conclude that testimony regarding the April 27, 1982 determination of the Association of Assessing Officers and the June 22, 1982 OPM committee report, both of which declared the defamatory accusations untrue, furnished a reasonable basis for the jury's findings of falsity.

  2. Gajewski v. Pavelo

    229 Conn. 829 (Conn. 1994)   Cited 25 times

    Under the general verdict rule, "if a jury renders a general verdict for one party, and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party." Curry v. Burns, supra, 225 Conn. 786. Thus, in a case in which the general verdict rule operates, if any ground for the verdict is proper, the verdict must stand; only if every ground is improper does the verdict fall. Staudinger v. Barrett, 208 Conn. 94, 100, 544 A.2d 164 (1988); LaFleur v. Farmington River Power Co., 187 Conn. 339, 342, 445 A.2d 924 (1982); Colucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483, 490, 441 A.2d 574 (1981). The rule rests on the policy of the conservation of judicial resources, at both the appellate and trial levels.

  3. Curry v. Burns

    225 Conn. 782 (Conn. 1993)   Cited 134 times
    In Curry, the plaintiff had alleged a violation of the defective highway statute, General Statutes § 13-144, and the defendant answered by denying liability and claiming that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the statute’s notice requirement.

    As it has generally been understood, and to the extent that it is not in dispute in this case, "[t]he so-called general verdict rule provides that, if a jury renders a general verdict for one party, and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party. Stone v. Bastarache, 188 Conn. 201, 204, 449 A.2d 142 (1982); Collucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483, 489, 441 A.2d 574 (1981). The rule applies whenever a verdict for one party could reasonably be rendered on one or more distinct causes of action; see Matthews v. F.M.C. Corporation, 190 Conn. 700, 706, 462 A.2d 376 (1983); or distinct defenses.

  4. Spitzer v. Haims Co.

    217 Conn. 532 (Conn. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the evil of permitting premature discussion by jurors is "not inherent in a properly safeguarded procedure of permitting jurors' questions"

    "The so-called general verdict rule provides that, if a jury renders a general verdict for one party, and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party. Stone v. Bastarache, 188 Conn. 201, 204, 449 A.2d 142 (1982); Collucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483, 489, 441 A.2d 574 (1981). The rule applies whenever a verdict for one party could reasonably be rendered on one or more distinct causes of action; see Matthews v. F.M.C. Corporation, 190 Conn. 700, 706, 462 A.2d 376 (1983); or distinct defenses.

  5. Hall v. Burns

    213 Conn. 446 (Conn. 1990)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that "in order for the jury to determine whether the commissioner exercised reasonable care ... it is only fair that the jury be made aware of all of the circumstances surrounding the commissioner's statutory duty"

    Recently in Fig v. Aetna Lee Casualty Co., supra, 202-204, we said: "The so called general verdict rule provides that, if a jury renders a general verdict for one party, and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party. Stone v. Bastarache, 188 Conn. 201, 204, 449 A.2d 142 (1982); Collucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483, 489, 441 A.2d 574 (1981). The rule applies whenever a verdict for one party could reasonably be rendered on one or more distinct causes of action; see Matthews v. F.M.C. Corporation, 190 Conn. 700, 706, 462 A.2d 376 (1983); or distinct defenses.

  6. Doe v. Manheimer

    212 Conn. 748 (Conn. 1989)   Cited 234 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that criminal attack on plaintiff was superseding cause of plaintiff's injuries notwithstanding plaintiff's claim that defendant's allowed overgrowth of vegetation on property where attack occurred was substantial factor in both occurrence and duration of attack

    The plaintiff has not argued that a different proximate cause analysis may or should apply to the different causes of action alleged. Therefore, although the jury's general verdict requires us to "presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party"; Finley v. Aetna Life Casualty Co., 202 Conn. 190, 202, 520 A.2d 208 (1987); Stone v. Bastarache, 188 Conn. 201, 204, 449 A.2d 142 (1982); Collucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483, 489, 441 A.2d 574 (1981); our analysis of the proximate cause issue embraces the plaintiffs separate claims of common law negligence, statutory negligence and public nuisance. "In order to establish liability as a result of a statutory violation, a plaintiff must: satisfy two conditions.

  7. Buckman v. People Express, Inc.

    205 Conn. 166 (Conn. 1987)   Cited 321 times
    Upholding a trial court finding that defendant insurer's refusing to provide its former employee with insurance extension despite his right under General Statutes 38-262d, and despite several requests by employee and his attorney, was in bad faith

    The rule provides that if "a jury renders a general verdict for one party, and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party. Stone v. Bastarache, 188 Conn. 201, 204, 449 A.2d 142 (1982); Colucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483, 489, 441 A.2d 574 (1981)." Finley v. Aetna Life Casualty Co., supra. "A party desiring to avoid the effects of the general verdict rule may elicit the specific grounds for the verdict by submitting interrogatories to the jury.

  8. Lambert v. Stovell

    205 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1987)   Cited 129 times
    Noting "assault and battery" are "governed by § 52-577

    Where "a jury renders a general verdict for one party, and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party." Find v. Aetna Life Casualty Co., 202 Conn. 190, 202, 520 A.2d 208 (1987); Slob v. Bastarache 188 Conn. 201, 204, 449 A.2d 142 (1982); Colucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483, 489, 441 A.2d 574 (1981). As we stated in Find v. Aetna Life Casualty Co., supra, 202-203, this rule applies whenever a verdict for one party could reasonably be rendered on one or more distinct causes of action or defenses.

  9. Alfano v. Insurance Center of Torrington

    203 Conn. 607 (Conn. 1987)   Cited 31 times
    In Alfano, the plaintiff, Raymond G. Alfano, Sr., brought an action against the defendant insurance agency, Insurance Center of Torrington (agency), alleging that the agency negligently had failed to procure fire insurance coverage for a building that Alfano had purchased three days before it was destroyed by fire.

    The usual statement of the rule is that a general verdict for one party raises a presumption that the jury found every issue in favor of "the prevailing party." Find v. Aetna Life Casualty Co., 202 Conn. 190, 202, 520 A.2d 208 (1987); Colucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483, 489-90, 441 A.2d 574 (1981). The plaintiff would ordinarily be regarded as "the prevailing party," since he did recover damages against the defendant, but it is plain that he did not prevail on the issue of contributory negligence.

  10. Finley v. Aetna Life Casualty Co.

    202 Conn. 190 (Conn. 1987)   Cited 293 times
    Holding that inclusion of appropriate disclaimers in handbook protects employers against employee contract claims

    The so-called general verdict rule provides that, if a jury renders a general verdict for one party, and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party. Stone v. Bastarache, 188 Conn. 201, 204, 449 A.2d 142 (1982); Collucci v. Pinette, 185 Conn. 483, 489, 441 A.2d 574 (1981). The rule applies whenever a verdict for one party could reasonably be rendered on one or more distinct causes of action; see Matthews v. F.M.C. Corporation, 190 Conn. 700, 706, 462 A.2d 376 (1983); or distinct defenses.