Legal Opinion
Heise v. Rosow
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided March 13, 2001No. AC 19596PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ZARELLA, J.
The plaintiff, Martin P. Heise,1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after the granting of the motion to set aside the judgment filed by the defendant, Bruce R. Rosow. On appeal, Heise contends that the court improperly concluded that (1) the assignment of a Florida judgment to Heise, the trustee of the judgment codebtors, extinguished the judgment and (2) Heise’s payment for the assignment was equivalent to a payment by a judgment debtor, which, coupled with the payments of the other judgment codebtors, constituted payment in full and, thus, extinguished…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Taylor v. Davis' AdministratrixSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- State v. PhiddConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Albert Mendel & Son, Inc. v. KroghConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
- State v. CoughlinConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Steelcase, Inc. v. CrystalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kelley v. TomasConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- South Sea Co. v. Global Turbine Component Technologies, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Heise v. RosowSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Prange v. ArszylaDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2024
- Randolph Fndn. v. Appeal Fr. Prob., No. X05 Cv 98-0167903 S (Apr. 3, 2001)Connecticut Superior Court · 2001