Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

158 Conn. 613

Hartmann v. Smith

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 13, 1969

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1969-05-13

Relies on Kasowitz v. Mutual Construction Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1969-05-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2002

14 state decisions

4019691970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The plaintiff, on appeal to this court, claimed for the first time that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the defendants had not filed an answer to her complaint. Practice Book § 298. Because the question was not raised in or decided by the trial court, we decline to consider it. Practice Book §§ 223, 652.

¶2The plaintiff’s counter affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment presented no genuine issue of fact as to whether the decedent, *614whose body was found on the tracks of the New Haven Bailroad, had been a passenger on the defendants’ train or as to how he met his death. It is not enough that one opposing a motion for a summary judgment claims there is a genuine issue of material fact; some evidence showing the existence of such an issue must be presented in the counter affidavit. Practice Book §§ 299, 300; Boyce v. Merchants Fire Ins. Co., 204 F. Sup. 311, 314 (D. Conn.); Kasowitz v. Mutual Construction Co., 154 Conn. 607, 613, 228 A.2d 149. The court therefore properly granted the motion for summary judgment.

¶3There is no error.

/158/conn/613 · .json · Public domain