Legal Opinion
Triton Associates v. Six New Corp.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 19, 1988No. 5138PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.
The plaintiff instituted this action against the named corporate defendant and two individual defendants seeking specific performance of a contract *173to convey certain real property.1 After granting the plaintiffs motion for default for failure to appear, the trial court rendered judgment against the defendant. The defendant appeals from the denial of its motion to open the default judgment and from the refusal of the trial court to change that ruling upon reargument. We find no error.
The following facts are relevant to this appeal. The plaintiffs motion for default for failure to appear was…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- STATE BAR ASSN. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
- Pantlin & Chananie Development Corp. v. Hartford Cement & Building Supply Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Manchester State Bank v. RealeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Costello v. Hartford Institute of Accounting, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Wilson v. TroxlerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Berzins v. BerzinsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Cholewinski v. ConwayConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- Danzig v. PDPA, INC.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2010
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.