Legal Opinion
Dooley v. Leo
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 14, 1981PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpeziale, J.
This appeal concerns the amount of damages awarded for the breach of the restoration clause in a contract for the excavation of gravel. The plaintiff 1 claims that the trial court erred by failing to state the factual basis of its decision and that the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff is clearly erroneous in light of the evidence and the facts stated in the memorandum of decision. 2 Upon a review of the record we find no error.
The key provision of the contract states: “As lessee excavates gravel or other materials, he shall pile up the top soil and keep the same in piles on…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Lukas v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Lar-Rob Bus Corp. v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Ball v. T. J. Pardy Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Toffolon v. Town of AvonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- In Re Quechee Lakes Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1990
- Venuti v. VenutiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Kuras v. KopeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Koennicke v. MaioranoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.