Legal Opinion
Meadowbrook Center, Inc. v. Buchman
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided December 6, 2016No. AC37979PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBishop, J.
This appeal requires us to assess the interplay between a legislative mandate based on a public policy and a procedural rule of practice. On appeal, the defendant, Robert Buchman, claims that the trial court incorrectly denied his postjudgment motion for attorney's fees, sought pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb, on the basis that his motion for attorney's fees was untimely, pursuant to Practice Book § 11-21. 1 We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following undisputed procedural and factual background is pertinent to our consideration of the issue on appeal. The plaintiff…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State v. ColtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del GrossoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- In re Samantha C.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- State v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. BuchmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
- U.S. Bank National Assn. v. ChristophersenConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
- Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. BuchmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2017
- Starble v. Inland Wetlands Comm'n of the Town of New HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
- Strand/BRC Group, LLC v. Board of RepresentativesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2022
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.