Legal Opinion

Litwin v. Ryan

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided September 20, 2011No. AC 32834PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BEACH, J.

The putative intervenor, Ms W. Lord, appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion to intervene as a party plaintiff in this action in which the plaintiff, Nathan Litwin, administrator of the estate of P. Edward Lizauskas, is seeking to void the assignment of certain shares of common stock to the defendant Mark Ryan. On appeal, Lord claims that the court erred by denying her motion to intervene. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to entertain Lord’s claim and, thus, we dismiss her appeal.

The record reveals the following relevant factual and procedural history. On July…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2000
  2. Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public HealthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  3. Second Exeter Corp. v. EpsteinConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
  4. BNY Western Trust v. RomanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
  5. DiGiovanna v. St. GeorgeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re Jewelyette M.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API