165 Conn. App. 429 - Lucenti v. Laviero’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “After a hearing on the motion, the court, Hon. Joseph M. Shortall , judge trial referee, issued a memorandum of decision on February 23, 2015, in which it granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that the exclusivity provision of the act barred the plaintiff's action against the defendants. The court concluded that the plaintiff could not satisfy [the substantial * certainty exception] to the exclusivity provision ... set forth in [ Suarez II , supra, 242 Conn. at 255 , 698 A.2d 838 ], because he could not 'prove an intent on the part of the defendant[s] to create a working condition that was "substantially certain”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lucenti v. Laviero

2. “The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion for summary judgment. In his memorandum of law, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants had 'rigged' the excavator to operate only at 'full throttle'; thus, the defendants 'intentionally created a dangerous condition that made [the] plaintiff's injuries substantially certain to occur, thereby overcoming the exclusivity rule of the [act].' In support of his argument, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from Daniel Quick, a former Laviero Contractors employee, as well as his own affidavit and an excerpt from his deposition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lucenti v. Laviero

3. “[a] careful reading of the [trial] court's memorandum of decision ... demonstrates that the court was not modifying the substantial certainty standard; rather, it was merely suggesting that it would be logical to conclude that because Laviero was willing to use the excavator before and after the incident thereby potentially exposing himself to harm, the plaintiff cannot show that the defendants had the requisite intent required to overcome the exclusivity provision of the act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lucenti v. Laviero