Legal Opinion

Mariano v. Hartland Building & Restoration Co.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided October 11, 2016No. AC37710PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDiPENTIMA, C.J.

*769 The apportionment defendant Close, Jensen and Miller, P.C. (Close), appeals from the *770 summary judgment rendered in favor of the intervening plaintiff, Brunalli Construction Company (Brunalli), on Close's counterclaim. On appeal, Close claims that the trial court erred in (1) concluding that Brunalli carried its initial burden of proving the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact and (2) determining that the affidavit submitted by Close in support of its opposition to Brunalli's motion for summary judgment failed to demonstrate the existence of an issue of material fact. We agree…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Ferryman v. City of GrotonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  2. D.H.R. Construction Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  3. Fogarty v. RashawSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
  4. Skuzinski v. Bouchard Fuels, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
  5. Malerba v. Cessna Aircraft Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Lamar v. BrevettiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
  2. Fernandez v. Mac Motors, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2021
  3. Lavette v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2022
  4. In Re: Liquid Waste Technology, LLCDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2022
  5. Peerless Realty, Inc. v. StamfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2022

2 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