Legal Opinion

Glanz v. Testa

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided June 25, 1985No. 2677PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The plaintiff was granted an ex parte prejudgment remedy to attach real property of the defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dissolve pursuant to General Statutes § 52-278e. At the hearing scheduled on the motion, the trial court refused to hear evidence because it found that the plaintiffs affidavit submitted with the ex parte prejudgment remedy application was insufficient. From the trial court’s granting of the motion to dissolve, the plaintiff has appealed and the defendants have cross appealed.

The plaintiff contends the trial court was required to hear testimony and accept…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Self-Service Sales Corp. v. HeinzConnecticut Appellate Court · 1983
  2. Lengyel & Lengyel Builders, Inc. v. HillConnecticut Appellate Court · 1983

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Glanz v. TestaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
  2. Glanz v. TestaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API