Legal Opinion
Perry v. Derosa
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided February 3, 1937No. File #49965PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOOTH (JOHN RUFUS), J.
The remonstrance as filed sets forth sixteen claimed reasons of remonstrance.
Some of these reasons relate to a minority report unnecessarily filed by Michael J. Whalen, some represent questions of fact concerning values, some relate to facts claimed to have a bearing upon values and some are merely legal conclusions.
During argument it was conceded that the remonstrance was intended to be directed only to the majority report filed by William B. Kelly and Herbert W. Oviatt and that it was intended to represent but five claims. The brief filed by remonstrants bears out this…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. SladeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- Congress Bank & Trust Co. v. BrockettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Town of Huntington v. BirchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Daly v. FiskSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Olmsted v. HoytSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
3Cited by2 opinions
- Eastern Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Seventy Six RealtyPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1977
- Eastern Savings Loan Assn v. Seventy Six RealtyConnecticut Superior Court · 1977