Legal Opinion

Pender v. Matranga

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided May 30, 2000No. AC 19049PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LAVERY, J.

The plaintiffs John Pender and Mary Pender2 appeal from the trial court’s judgment *21determining that the defendants Joseph Matranga and Christina Matranga3 have certain easements across the property of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contend that the court improperly (1) found that various easements exist and (2) refused to admit certain testimony under a statutory exception to the hearsay rule. We affirm that portion of the judgment ruling that a fourteen foot express easement exists across the property of the plaintiffs and reverse that portion finding that a twelve foot…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Development Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  2. HLO Land Ownership Associates Ltd. Partnership v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  3. Kelly v. IvlerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  4. Collins v. PrenticeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
  5. Powers v. OlsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Dinan v. MarchandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  2. Kelley v. TomasConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  3. Kwolek v. SwickardIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Kalas v. CookConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
  5. Simone v. MillerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005

6 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