Legal Opinion

Pagni v. Corneal

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided February 16, 1988No. 4407PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNorcott, J.

The defendants1 appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court for the plaintiffs in this contract action. The defendants claim that the trial court erred (1) in denying the defendants’ motion to *469dismiss made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, (2) in allowing the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings at the close of evidence to include a claim of quantum meruit, thus conforming the pleadings to the evidence, (3) in eliciting testimony from plaintiff Janet Pagni regarding the reasonable value of her services to the decedent, Mildred Browning, and (4) in holding an in-chambers conference…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  2. Cecio Bros., Inc. v. FeldmannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
  3. Ubysz v. DiPietroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  4. Krattenstein v. G. Fox & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
  5. Fuessenich v. DiNardoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Discover Leasing, Inc. v. MurphyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
  2. Cummings v. Twin Tool Manufacturing Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  3. Gulycz v. Stop & Shop CompaniesConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
  4. Feinberg v. BerglewiczConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
  5. Walshon v. WalshonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API