Legal Opinion
Cupina v. Bernklau
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided December 6, 1988No. 6568PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpallone, J.
The defendant appeals from the judgment for the plaintiff rendered by the trial court.
The defendant claims that the trial court erred (1) in finding that a $4000 transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was a loan rather than a gift, (2) in *160determining that General Statutes § 52-576 was the applicable statute of limitations in this case, and (3) in denying the defendant’s motion to implead.
The record reflects the following facts. The plaintiff, the defendant’s mother-in-law, advanced to the defendant on six occasions monies ranging in amounts from $416.40 to $4000. Five of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Leo v. LeoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Damora v. Christ-JanerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Campbell v. RockefellerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
- Tierney v. American Urban CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- John H. Kolb & Sons, Inc. v. G & L Excavating, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves v. Tuck-it-away, Bridgeport, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- DiNapoli v. DouderaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Centerbank v. GrossConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- R. Zemper & Associates v. ScozzafavaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.