Legal Opinion
Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided June 26, 2001No. AC 20507PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STOUGHTON, J.
The defendants, Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, and Emerald Realty, Inc., appeal from the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Anthony Barasso, after the trial court granted the plaintiffs motion to strike special defenses pleaded by the defendants. The defendants claim that the court improperly granted the motion because the motion failed to specify the grounds of insufficiency as required by Practice Book § 10-41.1 We agree with the defendants and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.2
*11The following facts and procedural history are…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Morris v. Hartford Courant Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Bouchard v. People's BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Connecticut National Bank v. DouglasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- King v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- City of Danbury v. Dana Investment Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- TD Bank, N.A. v. M.J. Holdings, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- Himmelstein v. Town of WindsorConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Toro v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- U.S. Bank National Assn., Trustee v. BlowersConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.