Legal Opinion
Foldeak v. Incerto
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided June 5, 1970No. File No. CV-1-688-15535PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDearington, J.
In their complaint the plaintiffs set forth two counts and rely on General Statutes §§ 52-480 and 52-570. The second count will be considered under part II and alleges a spite fence. In their first count they allege that they owned and occupied certain property, with a dwelling thereon, located in the rear of the defendants’ property and dwelling, the latter property fronting on William Street in the town of Norwalk, a public highway, and that ingress and egress to and from the plaintiffs’ property were by and over a driveway extending from William Street to their property. This drive*418way was…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Schurgast v. SchumannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Bauby v. KrasowSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Birdsey v. KosienskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Gager v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
- Gulick v. HamiltonIllinois Supreme Court · 1919
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Walton v. Town of New HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Mellon v. Century Cable Management Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Mahony v. DanisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
- Mahony v. DanisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
- Middletown Commercial Assoc. v. Middletown, No. 65413 (Mar. 11, 1994)Connecticut Superior Court · 1994