Legal Opinion

Hoenig v. Lubetkin

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided February 20, 1951PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Sullivan, J.

The plaintiffs, Edward E. Hoenig and Arcie Lubetkin, in their capacity as executors, brought this action to obtain a construction of the will of their testator, William Matheus Sullivan, late of Ridgefield. Named as defendants, among others, were Lubetkin individually and as trustee and Hoenig as trustee. From the judgment rendered by the court in answering three of the five questions upon which the plaintiffs sought advice, the defendants just mentioned, whom we shall hereinafter refer to as the defendants, have appealed. They claim to be aggrieved mainly by the answer given to question B.

The…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Hayward v. PlantSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  2. State v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
  3. Coit v. ComstockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1884
  4. Golstein v. HandleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Jackson v. AlsopSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Appliances, Inc. v. YostSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  2. Smith v. SnyderSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
  3. Piantedosi v. FloridiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  4. Link v. City of SheltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  5. Colonial Plumbing & Heating Supply Co. v. Contemporary Construction Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1983

38 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