Legal Opinion
Micci v. Thomas
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided September 21, 1999No. AC 17934PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HENNESSY, J.
The defendant James E. Cohen appeals1 from the trial court’s granting of the plaintiffs *15application for a prejudgment attachment of certain of Cohen’s real property. On appeal, he claims that the trial court improperly determined that the plaintiff, Dianne Micci, was a third party beneficiary of a contract because there was no evidence of an intent by either the promisors or the promisee to assume a direct obligation to the plaintiff. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are relevant to the disposition of this appeal. On October 25, 1995,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gateway Co. v. DiNoiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Knapp v. New Haven Road Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- Grigerik v. SharpeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Colonial Discount Co. v. Avon Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
- Greenberg, Rhein & Margolis, Inc. v. Norris-Faye Horton Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, No. X01 Cv 99 0156198 S (Oct. 31, 2000)Connecticut Superior Court · 2000
- Gramazio v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., No. X01cv00-0160391s (May 24, 2001)Connecticut Superior Court · 2001
- Micci v. Thomas, No. Cv 97 040 6843 (Oct. 6, 1999)Connecticut Superior Court · 1999