Legal Opinion
Gallo-Mure v. Tomchik
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 19, 2003No. AC 22606PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FLYNN, J.
The defendants, James Tomchik, Maureen Tomchik, Frank Bisecco and Betsy Bisecco, appeal from the trial court’s judgment determining that the plaintiff, Francine M. Gallo-Mure, holds a prescriptive easement over the defendants’ premises. The defen*701dants argue on appeal that the court acted improperly in two ways: (1) its factual finding of “implied consent” in its first articulation was inconsistent with its judgment granting a prescriptive easement; and (2) the court’s finding of continuous use of the property was clearly erroneous in light of the evidence presented that a…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Goldman v. QuadratoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
- Reynolds v. SofferSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Kelley v. TomasConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Phillips v. BonadiesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Boccanfuso v. ConnerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Malden Mills Industries, Inc. v. Maroun (In Re Malden Mills Industries, Inc.)Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the First Circuit · 2004
- Rudder v. MAMANASCO LAKE PARK ASS'N, INC.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Lowe v. City of SheltonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- Slack v. GreeneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.