Legal Opinion
Greenberg v. Mortgage Services Associates, Inc.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided June 25, 1996No. 14543PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Per curiam
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a prejudgment remedy in an action for fraud. In Nash v. Weed & Duryea Co., 236 Conn. 746, 749, 674 A.2d 849 (1996), our Supreme Court stated: “In the absence of a procedural flaw in prejudgment remedy proceedings; see, e.g., Hotz Corp. v. Carabetta, 226 Conn. 812, 816-17, 629 A.2d 377 (1993); appellate courts have only a limited role to play in reviewing a trial court’s broad discretion to deny or to grant a prejudgment remedy. ‘It is the trial court that must determine, in light of its assessment of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Augeri v. C. F. Wooding Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Bank of Boston Connecticut v. SchlesingerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- New England Land Co. v. DeMarkeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Greenberg, Rhein & Margolis, Inc. v. Norris-Faye Horton Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Nash v. Weed & Duryea Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Micci v. ThomasConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999