Legal Opinion
Stefanoni v. Duncan
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided November 1, 2005No. AC 25844PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRUENDEL, J.
The plaintiffs, Christopher Stefanoni and Margaret Stefanoni, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, concerning the existence of a prescriptive utility easement over a portion of their property and the extent of both a view restriction on and an access easement over the property of the defendant, Ian M. Duncan. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly held that (1) the defendant possesses a prescriptive utility easement over a portion of their property, (2) their easement over the defendant’s property “for access…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- City of Waterbury v. Town of WashingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Water Resources CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- Kuras v. KopeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Coughlin v. AndersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- American Trading Real Estate Properties, Inc. v. Town of TrumbullSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Stefanoni v. DuncanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Mierzejewski v. BrownellConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- Williams v. Green Power Ventures, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2023
- 140 Main Street-Derby, LLC v. Clark Development, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Stefanoni v. DuncanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.