Legal Opinion

Himmelstein v. Town of Windsor

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided July 29, 2009No. AC 29821PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DiPENTIMA, J.

The plaintiff, Paul R. Himmelstein, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant town of Windsor. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the defendant’s motion to strike was not fatally defective, (2) struck his nuisance count, (3) considered certain evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment and (4) granted the motion for summary judgment. We are not persuaded by the plaintiffs arguments and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Nolan v. BorkowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Sanzone v. Board of Police CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  3. Rowe v. GodouSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  4. White v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  5. Bartram v. Town of SharonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. HIMMELSTEIN v. Town of WindsorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2012
  2. Mott v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LPConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
  3. Town of Plainville v. Almost Home Animal Rescue & Shelter, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2018
  4. Bartlett v. Metropolitan District CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
  5. Kumah v. BrownConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API