Legal Opinion
Raymond v. Gilman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 9, 1930PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The appellants claim that the appointment of Raymond as permanent receiver is void, because of a deficiency in notice given of the hearing on the appointment. In this State the power to appoint receivers of corporations, both with and without capital stock, is expressly vested in the Superior Court by statute (§ 3443, as amended by § 3 of Chapter 151 of the Public Acts of 1919). The details of procedure in making appointments, both temporary and per manent, are prescribed by rule—§§ 50, 51, Rules of Superior Court. Practice Book, pp. 252, 253. Section 51 provides that “all appointments of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- In Re Application of Title Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Barber v. International Co. of MexicoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Mowry v. . SanbornNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Harned v. Beacon Hill Real Estate Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1911
- Links v. Connecticut River Banking Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Lombard v. Edward J. Peters, Jr., P.C.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- State v. KempSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Willow Funding Co., L.P. v. Grencom AssociatesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Washington Trust Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. BurgosSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.