Legal Opinion

Peters v. Pearl

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided March 7, 1995No. 13547PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchaller, J.

The defendants appeal from the judgment of the trial court ordering them to pay the plaintiff damages based on findings of trespass, conversion and unjust enrichment by the defendants. The defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) construed the description of the property in the deed by which the plaintiff took title to the parcel in question, (2) found that proof of record title satisfied the plaintiffs burden of proof in light of the pleadings, and (3) failed to credit the testimony of the plaintiffs immediate predecessors in title. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ruick v. TwarkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
  2. State v. SpeersConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
  3. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. K.J. Enterprises, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1989
  4. Star Enterprise v. HannaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. DAP Financial Management Co. v. Mor-Fam Electric, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2000
  2. Goodrich v. DiodatoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
  3. Farmers & Mechanics Bank v. KrupaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
  4. Chayka v. Perugini, No. Cv97-0256513s (Jul. 15, 1997)Connecticut Superior Court · 1997
  5. Peters v. PearlSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API