Legal Opinion
Fischel v. TKPK, Ltd.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 5, 1994No. 12176PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, J.
The defendants Thomas E. Minogue and Michelle C. Minogue (hereinafter the defendants) appeal from the granting of a prejudgment remedy (PJR) of attachment of their real property. The defendants claim that the trial court improperly granted the PJR because (1) the plaintiff1 failed to show probable cause to sustain its claim, (2) the PJR statutes; General Statutes § 52-278a et seq.; are unconstitutional because they do not require the plaintiff to post a bond, and (3) the PJR statutes violate the due process clause of the United States constitution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Thi…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Berry v. LoiseauSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Solomon v. AbermanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Walton v. Town of New HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Three S. Development Co. v. SantoreSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- New England Land Co. v. DeMarkeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Giordano v. GiordanoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
- Tyler v. SchnabelConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Bosco v. Arrowhead by Lake, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1999
- McFarline v. MickensConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
- Doe v. RapoportConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.