Legal Opinion
Gardner v. Pilato
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided February 26, 2002No. AC 21377PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LAVERY, C. J.
The protracted and contentious litigation between these parties has spawned its second appeal to this court. The defendants, Michae1 Pilato and Salvatore Pilato, appeal from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Roland H. Gardner, that was based on a theory of unjust enrichment. Although the defendants raise several claims, the key issue is whether there was evidence to support a finding of unjust enrichment in the amount of the plaintiffs bill for surveying work done.1 Because there was such evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Although the procedural…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Anastasia v. Beautiful You Hair Designs, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Jennings v. Reale Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
- Pleines v. Franklin Construction Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Gardner v. PilatoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United Coastal Industries, Inc. v. Clearheart Construction Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Ramondetta v. AmentaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Zeigler v. Sony Corp. of AmericaConnecticut Superior Court · 2004
- Mitchell v. Guardian Systems, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- T & M Building Co. v. HastingsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.