Legal Opinion

Rutter v. Janis

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided March 6, 2018No. AC38699, AC38792, AC38793PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBear, J.

In these consolidated appeals, 1 a principal issue in each of the cases is the meaning and application of the phrase "not more than thirty days" set forth in General Statutes § 14-60 (a). 2 The trial court, in rendering summary judgment in each of the three consolidated cases, from which the plaintiffs have appealed, interpreted that phrase to require the exclusion of May 9, 2013, the date on which a "Temporary Loan of Motor Vehicles" agreement (loan agreement) between Luis Martins 3 and the defendant Danbury Fair Hyundai, LLC, was executed, from the computation of that thirty day period. 4…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Lamberti v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
  2. Austin, Nichols Co., Inc. v. GilmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  3. Police Department v. State Board of Labor RelationsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  4. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. StrongConnecticut Appellate Court · 2014
  5. Fox v. AbelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Rutter v. JanisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2020
  2. McCall v. SopneskiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021
  3. Rutter v. JanisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API