Legal Opinion

Hannaford v. Mann

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided March 20, 2012No. AC 32731PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*267 Opinion

ROBINSON, J.

The plaintiff, Michael Hannaford, acting in his capacity as the administrator for the estate of his aunt, Ruth Goryn, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for summary judgment on count one of his complaint against the defendant, David Mann,1 and granting the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on count one.2 The plaintiff argues that the court erred by determining that a deed and a power of attorney given to the defendant by Goryn were valid despite the fact that the defendant acted as an attesting witness to both documents. We agree…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Brooks v. SweeneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
  2. Coppola v. CoppolaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  3. Martin v. LemonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
  4. Webster Bank v. FlanaganConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
  5. Porter v. MorrillConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cornelius v. RosarioConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
  2. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital v. CreedConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
  3. Stott v. Peerless InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
  4. Chase Home Finance, LLC v. MorneauConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015
  5. Rescia Ch. 7 Trustee v. Freedom Mortgage CorporationUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API