Legal Opinion
Plasil v. Tableman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 21, 1992No. 14397PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGlass, J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to grant prejudgment remedies when the plaintiff, Ellen Plasil, had not paid an entry fee as required by General Statutes § 52-259.1 The trial court denied the motion of the defendants, Linda Selby Tableman and Stephen D. Tableman, to dissolve, modify or vacate prejudgment remedies of attachment and garnishment. The defendants appealed from the judgment of the trial court to *70the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to ourselves pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Castro v. VieraSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Monroe v. MonroeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Ledgebrook Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Lusk CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Hillman v. Town of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- Rummel v. RummelConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Schick v. Windsor Airmotive Division/Barnes GroupConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. St. JohnConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.