Legal Opinion
Gennarini Construction Co. v. Messina Painting & Decorating Co.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 16, 1988No. 5106PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpallone, J.
The defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of its postjudgment motion for supplemental interest and attorney’s fees, filed pursuant to General Statutes § 49-41a.1 We find no error.
The facts pertinent to this appeal, and a recounting of the procedural maze this case has traversed, are as follows. The plaintiff, Gennarini Construction Company, Inc., and the defendant, Messina Painting & Decorating Company, were, respectively, the general *506contractor and a painting subcontractor performing work on a public works project in Danbury. A dispute arose between the parties over amounts the…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. PearsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- State v. AillonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Wade's Dairy, Inc. v. Town of FairfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Lashgari v. LashgariSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Meinket v. LevinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Virgo v. LyonsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- CFM of Connecticut, Inc. v. ChowdhurySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Commonwealth v. BartellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Town of Pawlet v. Daniel BanyaiSupreme Court of Vermont · 2024
- Young v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.