Legal Opinion
Cato v. Cato
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided March 24, 1992No. 10156PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFoti, J.
The defendant appeals from the judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. He claims that the trial court improperly determined that the process and service of process were sufficient, and that the court had personal jurisdiction over him. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. The parties were married in Amsterdam, New York, on November 12, 1965. In 1970, they purchased a home in Bloomfield and were domiciled there until their separation in March, 1989. After the separation, the defendant resided in Texas where he was personally…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Standard Tallow Corp. v. JowdySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Gaudio v. GaudioConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- D'OCCHIO v. Connecticut Real Estate CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cato v. CatoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Pelletier v. GoodnoffConnecticut Superior Court · 1998
- Alldred v. AlldredConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- Cato v. CatoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Churchill v. Churchill, No. Fa97-0143454s (Jul. 16, 1998)Connecticut Superior Court · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.