Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1969

Hartmann v. Smith

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided May 13, 1969

158 Conn. 613; 259 A.2d 645

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Daily v. New Britain Machine Co. (Conn. 1986)
Smith v. 109 Foster Street, No. Cv00 0072817 (Jun. 5, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
Burns v. Hartford Hospital (Conn. 1984)
Plouffe v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (Conn. 1971)
United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission (Conn. 1969)
Bergen v. the Standard Fire Insurance Co., No. Cv93 044099s (Dec. 31, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
Castelvetro v. Mills, No. Cv91 0320396 (May 21, 1996) (Connecticut Superior Court 1996)
Yale-New Haven Hospital v. Matthews (Connecticut Superior Court 1974)
Yale-New Haven Hospital v. Matthews (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 1974)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The 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.

The 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.

There is no error.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.