Legal Opinion
Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided May 19, 1987No. 12998; 12999PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHull, J.
The plaintiff, a real estate corporation, sued both the owner of an office building and the broker who listed the property for sale, seeking a co-broker’s commission. The trial court granted, a motion to dissolve an ex parte attachment of the owner’s property, and later granted a motion for a prejudgment remedy against the broker and his agency. From the former, the plaintiff appealed, claiming that the court erred in ordering the dissolution of the attachment. From the latter, the named defendant and the defendant Revest, Inc., appealed, claiming that the court erred in granting the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Mead v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Conaway v. PrestiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Solomon v. AbermanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Bank of Boston Connecticut v. SchlesingerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- McCutcheon & Burr, Inc. v. BermanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Brookfield Development Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Noble v. MarshallConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- People's Bank v. Bilmor Building Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1992
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.