Legal Opinion
Outdoor Development Corp. v. Mihalov
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 1, 2000No. AC 19183PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PETERS, J.
This appeal arises out of a landowner’s repudiation of a lease permitting the tenant to construct and maintain an outdoor advertising sign on the landowner’s property. It is no longer contested that the repudiation was a breach of the lease. The principal issue before us is whether the trial court properly determined the amount of lost profits that the breach entitled the tenant to recover from the landlord.
The plaintiff, Outdoor Development Corporation, brought a multicount action against the defendants, Tom Mihalov, Sr. (Mihalov), and Murphy, Inc. (Murphy), in which the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & KotkinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Bead Chain Manufacturing Co. v. Saxton Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Embalmers' Supply Co. v. GiannittiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- Richards v. RichardsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Hackling v. Casbro Construction of Rhode IslandConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- State v. BeaulieuConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- State v. SweeneyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.