Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Citation
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Parent Document
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2004-10-05
Other Sections in This Document (11)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
- Mamudovski v. BIC CORPORATION, 857 A.2d 328 (2004)
Full Text
701 charsings, the court granted the defendant’s oral motion for summary judgment on the first count of the plaintiffs complaint. The court’s decision was based on its determination that a certain allegation in the second count of the plaintiffs complaint constituted a binding judicial admission that, at the time of the alleged incident, the plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment and that, therefore, she could not prevail on the negligence count. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant on the second and third counts of the plaintiffs complaint. Following the court’s denial of the plaintiffs motion to set the verdict aside, the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court.