Legal Opinion
Kendall v. Amster
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided June 10, 2008No. AC 26191PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ROBINSON, J.
The defendants Colton Amster and Red Line Restorations, LLC (Red Line), 1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting a prejudgment remedy in favor of the plaintiffs, John P. Kendall and Carl Jenkins. 2 On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) found that there was probable cause to grant the prejudgment remedy, and (2) issued a prejudgment remedy attaching $5.6 million of Red Line’s property or assets and $650,000 of Amster’s property or assets. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following facts and procedural…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Development Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Ledgebrook Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Lusk CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Windels v. Environmental Protection CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Ral Management, Inc. v. Valley View AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Call Center Technologies, Inc. v. Grand Adventures Tour & Travel Publishing Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
- Town of New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Kosiorek v. SmigelskiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Call Center Technologies, Inc. v. Grand Adventures Tour & Travel Publishing Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2014
- Medina v. Unlimited Systems, LLCDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.