Legal Opinion
Grove Corporation v. Tinty, No. 377774 (Jan. 4, 1991)
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided January 4, 1991No. 377774Unpublished
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE The plaintiff moves to strike the first special defense (rule against perpetuities), the second special defense (unreasonable restraint on alienation of land), and subparagraph (d) of the third special defense (unconscionability) as legally insufficient.
The following facts are alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. The defendant, Donald M. Tinty, owns a parcel of real property in Plainville, Connecticut. The plaintiff, the Grove Corporation, leased the property by way of a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Rowe v. GodouSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Donovan v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
- H. J. Lewis Oyster Co. v. WestSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
- Rowe v. GodouConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.