Legal Opinion
Murphy, Inc. v. Remodeling
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided March 27, 2001No. AC 19713PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*518 Opinion
ZARELLA, J.
The defendant, Remodeling, Etc., Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering it to reinstate the plaintiff, Murphy, Inc., into possession of the premises, which is the subject of this entry and detainer action, and to pay the plaintiffs attorney’s fees. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) found that the plaintiff was in possession of the premises, (2) found that the agreement between the parties constituted a lease and not a license of real property, (3) failed to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Practice Book §…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Jo-Mark Sand & Gravel Co. v. PantanellaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Reynolds v. . Van BeurenNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Powers v. OlsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Berlingo v. Sterling Ocean House, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Clean Corp. v. FostonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- B & D Associates Inc. v. RussellConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Wilcox v. FerrainaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- Evans v. WeissbergConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Paulsen v. KronbergConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- ARB Construction, LLC v. Pinney Construction Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2003
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.