Legal Opinion

Kroll v. Sebastian

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided June 13, 2000No. AC 19440PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LANDAU, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the defendants’2 motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff claims that the court, having concluded that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the strip of land over which the plaintiff sought a prescriptive easement was held open for public use, improperly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.3 We agree.

The following facts and procedural history are pertinent to our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff, Donna L. Kroll, brought the present action…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Nolan v. BorkowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Field v. KearnsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  3. American Trading Real Estate Properties, Inc. v. Town of TrumbullSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  4. Chase Manhattan Bank v. CDC Financial Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1999
  5. Chase Manhattan Bank v. CDC Financial Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  2. Forte v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  3. Cornfield Point Ass'n v. Town of Old SaybrookConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
  4. Hernandez v. CirmoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
  5. Bastian v. Dipaola, No. Cv 98 0418322 S (Jul. 24, 2002)Connecticut Superior Court · 2002

1 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