Legal Opinion
J L J Associates, Inc. v. Persiani
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided August 9, 1988No. File D.N. CV87 0089730 SPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEmmett, J.
Before the court for decision is the defendants’ motion to strike. The defendants claim that the plaintiff’s action to enforce an option to purchase real property is barred by the rule against perpetuities.
The defendants’ motion challenges the legal sufficiency, on the face of the complaint, of the claims made. Practice Book § 152 (1); King v. Board of Education, 195 Conn. 90, 93, 486 A.2d 111 (1985). The court must construe the facts most favorably to the pleader, and “all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations are taken as admitted.” Amodio v.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Amodio v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Bruken Realty Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1986
- King v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Klein v. ChatfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- Southern New England Contracting Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hare v. McClellanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Webster Trust v. RolyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Dipiro v. Cole Associates, Inc., No. 27 58 07 (Oct. 25, 1990)Connecticut Superior Court · 1990
- Grove Corporation v. Tinty, No. 377774 (Jan. 4, 1991)Connecticut Superior Court · 1991