Legal Opinion
Cadle Co. v. Ginsburg
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided December 29, 1998No. AC 17539PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LAVERY, J.
The defendant, Robert A. Ginsburg, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Cadle Company. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly determined that (1) the plaintiff was a holder in due course, (2) the defendant received adequate consideration for the promissory note, (3) the defendant was not fraudulently induced to execute the note and the note was not obtained by a misrepresentation of material facts, (4) there was a proper foundation for the admission of the note and the defendant was not entitled to an interlocutory…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fortner v. Fannin Bank in WindomCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1982
- Funding Consultants, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Richmond v. LongoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- SKW Real Estate Ltd. Partnership v. GallicchioConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Mechanics & Farmers Savings Bank v. Delco Development Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Rayhall v. Akim Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Cadle Co. v. ErratoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- State v. RogelstadConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Terracino v. Fairway Asset Management, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2003
- In re James L.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.