Legal Opinion
Parlato v. McCarthy
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided October 25, 1949PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
On November 22, 1948, the Probate Court for the district of Derby by its order and decree found that the prorated tax, under § 315h of the 1945 Supplement to the General Statutes (Rev. 1949, § 2076), due from the plaintiff as a distributee of the estate of Royal W. Pinney was $18,246.37. The plaintiff took an appeal to the Superior Court. In his amended reasons of appeal he attacked the validity of the Probate Court’s decree on the ground that the statutes upon which it was predicated were retroactive and unconstitutional.. The Superior Court sustained the defendants’ demurrer to the reasons…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Welch v. HenrySupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Riggs v. Del DragoSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Untermyer v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Fernandez v. WienerSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Stockdale v. Insurance CompaniesSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Wiegand v. HeffernanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Dennen v. SearleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- New York Trust Co. v. DoubledaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Wilmington Trust Co. v. CopelandSupreme Court of Delaware · 1953
- Jerome v. JeromeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.