Legal Opinion

Matto v. Dan Beard, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided August 16, 1988No. 5350PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBieluch, J.

The plaintiff1 has appealed from the trial court’s judgment denying his claims for injunctive relief, for a declaratory judgment and for damages, and from the judgment on the counterclaim finding that the named defendant has adversely possessed a portion of the plaintiff’s riparian rights in the Housatonic River. The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred (1) in holding that the defendants established adverse possession of the disputed land, (2) in holding that the plaintiff’s action was barred by General Statutes § 52-575, (3) in leaving title to portions of the subject property…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Cummings v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  2. Dacey v. Connecticut Bar Assn.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
  3. Lopinto v. HainesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  4. Hinkley v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
  5. Roche v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. McCullough v. Waterfront Park Ass'nConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
  2. Lisiewski v. SeidelConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
  3. Durkin Village Plainville, LLC v. CunninghamConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
  4. Stiefel v. LindemannConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
  5. Caminis v. TroySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API