Legal Opinion

Sussman v. Riverbank Motors Corp.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 6, 1966PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThim, J.

By complaint dated May 13, 1965, the plaintiff instituted an action, seeking the appointment of a receiver for the defendant Riverbank Motors Corporation for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the corporation under § 33-382 of the General Statutes. As one of the grounds for relief, the plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he and the defendant Seymour Goldstein each owned 50 percent of the outstanding capital stock of the defendant corporation and that because of this equal division of the stock between them, the management of the corporation is deadlocked, and they have been unable…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Glazer v. RosoffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
  2. City of Bristol v. Bristol Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
  3. Town of Trumbull v. EhrsamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
  4. Cubalevic v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  5. Dirton v. McCarthySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Governors Grove Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Hill Development Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  2. Spears v. Kerars Realty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API