Legal Opinion
Kupstis v. Michaud
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided December 26, 1989No. 7895PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNorcott, J.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered against him by the trial court on the report of an attorney trial referee. The plaintiff raises two closely related claims on appeal. He first claims that the trial court erred in accepting the attorney referee’s report over his objection after failing to find the 120 day time limitation of General Statutes § 51-183b applicable to attorney referees. The plaintiff’s second claim, necessarily dependent upon the outcome of the first, is that the unreasonable delay between the time of the hearing and the time of the filing of the referee’s report…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
- Kowalsky Properties, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1986
- Kroop v. KroopSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
3Cited by9 opinions
- Kupstis v. MichaudSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Gumpert v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1995
- Holly Hill Holdings v. LowmanConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Kupstis v. MichaudSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Party Time Deli, Inc. v. Neylan, No. Cv 99 0174375 (Aug. 20, 2001)Connecticut Superior Court · 2001
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.