Legal Opinion
Dills v. Town of Enfield
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 18, 1989No. 13533PublishedCited by 79 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the doctrine of commercial impracticability excuses a developer from submitting construction plans when he discovers that necessary financing has become unavailable. The plaintiffs, Timothy E. Dills and the Neecon Corporation, sued the defendants, the town of Enfield (town) and the Enfield development agency (agency), to recover a $100,000 deposit Dills had paid the agency under an option and contract for sale. The trial court referred the case to Attorney J. Read Murphy, a state trial referee appointed pursuant to General Statutes § 52-434 (a)…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Northern Indiana Public Service Company, an Indiana Corporation v. Carbon County Coal Company, a PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- United States v. Wegematic CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- West Haven Sound Development Corp. v. City of West HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by79 opinions
- O'Hara v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- John T. Brady & Co. v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- White Oak Corp. v. Department of TransportationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Romano v. City of DerbyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- East Capitol View Community Development Corp. v. RobinsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.