Legal Opinion · Dissent

Crowell v. Danforth

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 19, 1992No. 14332Published

1DissentBorden, J.

I agree with part I of the majority opinion. Regarding part II, however, *159I disagree that the proper course is to remand the case to the trial referee for a further articulation of the basis of his finding of unjust enrichment. I believe that the proper course is to reverse the judgment regarding unjust enrichment and to remand for a new trial on that issue.

I do not read the record, as does the majority, as unclear, ambiguous, incomplete, or without any basis for the trial referee’s decision on the issue of unjust enrichment. Paragraph A. 12 of the plaintiff’s motion to correct requested the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lauer v. Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  2. Vesce v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  3. Neumann v. NeumannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
  4. Brady v. BradySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
  5. Lerman v. LevineConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988

2 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