Legal Opinion

Paulsen v. Kronberg

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided November 13, 2001No. AC 20587PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

2Per curiam

The plaintiff, Harry Paulsen, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants on all counts of his complaint.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) failed to find facts claimed by the plaintiff to establish his right to damages, (2) found facts contrary to the evidence and (3) failed to find that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for unjust enrichment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The first two issues that the plaintiff raises in his brief allege various facts that the trial court improperly found or failed to find. “Our…

3Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  2. Gagne v. VaccaroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  3. McNeil v. RiccioConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
  4. Murphy, Inc. v. RemodelingConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  5. Johnson v. De ToledoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by7 opinions

  1. Maltas v. MaltasDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2002
  2. Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Muros North Ltd. PartnershipConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
  3. Herring v. DanielsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
  4. Prestige Management, LLC v. AugerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
  5. Febles v. Chyung, No. Cv01 0184417 S (Aug. 29, 2002)Connecticut Superior Court · 2002

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API