From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CROCCO v. LIEB

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury
May 20, 1992
1992 Ct. Sup. 4998 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992)

Opinion

No. 0104638

May 20, 1992


ORDER (#116)


After hearing held on defendant's motion, it is hereby ORDERED: granted; for the following reasons:

Despite the well-reasoned opinions of Judges Santos (Kizina v. Minier, 5 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 18, p. 481 (1992)) and Murray (Henderson v. Micciche, 6 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 11, p. 377 (1992)), this court is unwilling, in the absence of appellate pronouncement, to change its stance on the validity of a claim for filial consortium (see attached copy of order #102, Case No. 0101277, Judicial District of Waterbury, Zlotoff et al v. Perugini, June 4, 1991).

GAFFNEY, J.


Summaries of

CROCCO v. LIEB

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury
May 20, 1992
1992 Ct. Sup. 4998 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992)
Case details for

CROCCO v. LIEB

Case Details

Full title:MARY ELLEN CROCCO ET AL v. JULIAN LIEB M.D

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Waterbury

Date published: May 20, 1992

Citations

1992 Ct. Sup. 4998 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992)

Citing Cases

Mendillo v. Board of Education

After hearing held on defendants' motion to strike, it is hereby Ordered: As to Counts 6, 8, 12, 14 and 18 of…

Flores v. Danbury Hospital

perior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 325447 (July 22, 1993, Zoarski,…