Legal Opinion
Iodice v. Rusnak
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 28, 1956PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWynne, J.
In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover a broker’s commission on the claim that he had produced customers ready, willing and able to buy property listed with him by the then owners on terms which the latter had fixed. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed.
From so much of the finding as is unchallenged, the following facts appear: In April, 1952, George and Katherine Rusnak were joint owners of property at 208-210 Brooks Street in Bridgeport. There was no mortgage upon the property. The owners listed it for sale with the plaintiff and agreed to pay…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cyclone Fence Co. v. McAvineySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Hancock Co., Inc. v. Poli CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
3Cited by10 opinions
- Botticello v. StefanoviczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Leary v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Mutual Communications Associates, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. VeneriSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Beaucar v. Bristol Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nConnecticut Appellate Court · 1969
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.