Legal Opinion
Huckabee v. Stevens
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided March 18, 1975No. FILE No. 03PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBarber, J.
The first count of the amended complaint, based on contract, and the second count, relying on quantum meruit, seek recovery for labor and materials furnished to the defendants James Stevens and Tatiana Stevens. The third count alleges that the defendant D. Ross Potter entered into an oral contract with the plaintiff for the performance of plumbing services and the installing of plumbing materials at an agreed price in a dwelling not owned by Potter; that thereafter Potter agreed to pay the plaintiff a further sum for additional work; and that, although the original agreed price was paid by…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Covino v. PfefferSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Bartolotta v. CalvoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Wexler Construction Co. v. Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Teitelman v. BloomsteinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Reed v. HolcombSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Crozier and Gudsnuk v. Valentine, No. Cv-91-0036504 (Apr. 27, 1992)Connecticut Superior Court · 1992
- Naugatuck Savings Bank v. Fiorenzi, No. 0104014 (Feb. 25, 1994)Connecticut Superior Court · 1994