Darmos v. Pasqua
Connecticut Superior Court
1Per curiam
In this ease the plaintiff’s damage claims were for the rental value of the premises occupied by the defendants as tenants and for waste occurring during the tenancy. It is undisputed that no formal hearing in damages was held. In oral argument the plaintiff conceded that no court reporter was present, that no testimony was taken and that the judge took his action in chambers. Although the judge did file a finding, a finding was not proper because he heard no evidence. Gary Excavating Co. v. North Haven, 160 Conn. 411, 413; Sorensen v. Cox, 132 Conn. 583, 587.
The record recites that on March…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. PenningtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Norwalk Street Railway Company's AppealSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- Cardona v. ValentinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Gary Excavating Co. v. Town of North HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- Went v. SchmidtSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ratner v. WillametzConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Lopez v. K. B. Kennedy Engineering Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1981
- Ida County Courier & the Reminder v. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Iowa · 1982
- IDA COUNTY COURIER, ETC. v. Atty. Gen.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1982