Legal Opinion
Central Bank v. Colonial Romanelli Associates
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 1, 1995No. 13346PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, J.
The defendants Colonial Romanelli Associates and Philip S. Will appeal from the judgment rendered for the plaintiff after a trial to the court. They claim that the trial court (1) improperly awarded interest where the note provided for a variable interest rate based on a failed index, (2) improperly admitted evidence concerning the amount of the debt and the computation of interest, and (3) improperly admitted testimony derived from computer records without a *577proper foundation. We do not discuss an additional claim pertaining to a late charge because it has been conceded by the plaintiff. We…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. CurcioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- State v. BarnesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. La Rambla Shopping Center, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1986
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity v. Henry H. BlantonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- State v. CareySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- New England Savings Bank v. Bedford Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Napert-Boyer PartnershipConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- SKW Real Estate Ltd. Partnership v. GallicchioConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Shadhali, Inc. v. HintlianConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Ninth RMA Partners, L.P. v. KrassConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.