Housing Authority v. Lamothe
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.
The defendant Lucienne Lamothe appeals following the trial court’s denial of her motion to open a judgment by stipulation in a summary process action. The defendant1 claims that the trial court’s refusal to open the judgment without conducting an evidentiary hearing constituted an abuse of discretion.
In August, 1990, the plaintiff Stamford Housing Authority instituted a summary process action to recover possession of the premises at 213 Connecticut Avenue in Stamford for nonpayment of rent. Named as defendants in the summary process action in addition to Lucienne Lamothe were her husband and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Gillis v. GillisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Fellows v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Bryan v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Kukanskis v. GriffithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Batory v. BajorConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Housing Authority v. LamotheSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Mulligan v. HallConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Housing Authority of Stamford v. LamotheSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- King v. Granger, No. Sph-9103-59800 (Jul. 6, 1992)Connecticut Superior Court · 1992