|
Law Libraries' NewsLog > Posts > Property Law Appellate Opinions - September 2009
|
10/2/2009
AC28926 - Milford Paintball, LLC v. Wampus Milford Associates, LLC ("On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the lease agreement had never become effective and, as a result, improperly found in favor of the plaintiffs on their complaint and failed to find in favor of the defendant on its special defenses and counterclaim. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the lease agreement was ever effective.")
AC29269 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Litchfield Housing Authority ("The complainant claims that the court (1) improperly denied her right to intervene and, in the alternative, (2) abused its discretion in denying her permissive intervention. The defendants claim that (1) there is no final judgment for purposes of appeal because the complainant has no colorable claim for intervention as of right and (2) on the merits, the court properly denied her claim for intervention as of right and did not abuse its discretion in denying her permissive intervention. The commission claims that the complainant should be allowed permissive intervention.")
AC29177 - Milford v. Maykut ("The plaintiff claims that the court improperly awarded the defendants compensation for the diminution in value of a hypothetical lot of a subdivision when there was no evidence that a subdivision could be achieved within a reasonable time.")
AC29516 - D'Amato Investments, LLC v. Sutton ("This case involves the interpretation of a commercial lease and a personal guarantee of that lease. The plaintiff, D’Amato Investments, LLC, brought this action against the defendant, David Sutton, to recover the amount allegedly due under a commercial lease between the plaintiff and Chimaera, Inc. (Chimaera), pursuant to a guarantee signed by the defendant.")
AC30144 - McCook v. Whitebirch Construction, LLC ("On appeal, McCook claims that the court improperly (1) declined to admit certain checks into evidence at the hearing on the motions to enforce the settlement agreement, (2) found the terms of the settlement agreement to be clear and unambiguous, (3) granted Lenihan relief beyond the scope of the settlement by awarding it attorney’s fees and interest, (4) refused to articulate its reasons for declining to admit the checks into evidence and (5) unconstitutionally denied him a fair trial by (a) refusing to allow him to finish testifying and (b) at the time the case was reported to be settled, failing to canvass the parties to determine whether they understood the terms of the settlement agreement.")
AC29785 - Rissolo v. Betts Island Oyster Farms, LLC ("This is an appeal from two matters, Rissolo v. Betts Island Oyster Farms, LLC, and Lovejoy v. Rissolo, formally consolidated by motion on the second day of trial on November 28, 2007. Both cases are essentially partition actions, with the Lovejoy case seeking additional relief in a count for damages for a breach of contract. The trial court ordered a partition by sale and awarded damages to Frederick A. Lovejoy, the substitute defendant in the first case and the plaintiff in the second case, from which he now appeals.")
AC29834 - Mansfield v. A & M Automotive ("The plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant did not violate General Statutes § 14-145a, (2) failed to find that the defendant was liable for conversion and (3) failed to find that the defendant’s actions constituted a violation of General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA)...Red Brick and El Dorado shared use of a parking lot, and El Dorado had an arrangement with Red Brick such that Red Brick allowed El Dorado’s tenants to park in certain areas.") |
|
|
|
|
|