Legal Opinion
Jo-Mark Sand & Gravel Co. v. Pantanella
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 24, 1953PublishedCited by 60 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
The defendant in error, hereinafter called the owner, instituted an action of summary process against the plaintiff in error, whom we shall call the company, in the Town Court of Rocky Hill. Judgment was rendered for the owner. The company thereupon brought a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas, which set aside the judgment of the lower court and directed that judgment be rendered in favor of the company. The owner has appealed.
The facts stated in the bill of exceptions may be abbreviated as follows: The owner had title to a parcel of land in Rocky Hill, about twelve acres in extent,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Webb v. AmblerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Beckett v. City of Paris Dry Goods Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Colt v. EvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Baker v. KenneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Pierce v. . KeatorNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- Jefferson Garden Associates v. GreeneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Fellows v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- DeLuca v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
- City of Bridgeport v. Barbour-Daniel Electronics, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- Southland Corp. v. VernonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1983
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.