Legal Opinion
Cadle Co. v. Errato
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 6, 2002No. AC 20268PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DRANGINIS, J.
In this action involving a default on a promissory note, the defendant Robert Errato1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff, Cadle Company. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that the plaintiff was a holder in due course of the promissory note when (a) the copy of the promissory note presented at trial should have been excluded under the best evidence rule and as impermissible hearsay evidence and (b) the plaintiff failed to produce at trial the original promissory…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Giulietti v. GiuliettiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Thomas v. City of West HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. DowlingConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
- Zapolsky v. SacksSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Florian v. LengeConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Gambardella v. Apple Health Care, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Duplissie v. DevinoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- John H. Kolb & Sons, Inc. v. G & L Excavating, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Dubreuil v. WittConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.