Legal Opinion

Ruotolo v. Tietjen

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided January 31, 2006No. AC 25239PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LAVERY, C. J.

This appeal presents a question of statutory interpretation of General Statutes § 45a-441, our testamentary antilapse statute. The appellant, Kathleen Smaldone, 1 appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court on appeal from the Probate Court, which found the statute inoperative in the present case. We disagree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.

The facts are undisputed. On March 1, 1990, John N. Swanson executed a will. The residuary clause contained therein bequeathed, inter alia, “one-half ... of [the residue] property to Hazel Brennan of…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Trimble v. GordonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Frillici v. Town of WestportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  3. Johnson v. MansonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  4. Hayes v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
  5. Estate of ToddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Housing AuthorityConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
  2. Ruotolo v. TietjenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  3. Ruotolo v. TietjenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  4. Timothy Brian Johnson and Phillip Barnes v. Judith MayersSupreme Court of Alabama · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API