Legal Opinion
Fishman v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 6, 1985No. 2218PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBorden, J.
In this case, we are called upon to interpret General Statutes § 52-410, which provides a judicial mechanism for a party to an arbitration agreement to compel the other party to proceed with arbitration. We are also called upon, ultimately, to decide whether the truncated procedure provided by that statute violates our constitutional principle of the separation of powers.
The plaintiff is the insured under a homeowner’s policy issued by the defendant. By a complaint dated December 20,1982, the plaintiff alleged that she is an insured of the defendant, that the policy contains an *341arbitration…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- Peck v. JacqueminSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Adams v. RubinowSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & TrantoloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Norwalk Street Railway Company's AppealSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- State v. ClementeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Bennett v. MeaderSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Success Centers, Inc. v. Huntington Learning Centers, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- State v. KluttzConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Spitzer v. Haims & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Burton v. Planning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.