Legal Opinion
Urban v. Prims
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided May 10, 1979No. File SP-N-7903-234-NBPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpada, J.
The plaintiff landlord brings this action in summary process seeking possession for the termination of a lease. The defendant tenant filed the present motion charging that “the plaintiff did not serve the defendant with a notice to quit as required by Connecticut General Statutes, Section 47a-23.” No further explanation is provided. The tenant, at argument, contended in effect that the summary process proceedings were vitiated because the plaintiff’s predecessor in title was the owner at the time of the service of the notice to quit. The named plaintiff, in the interval between the notice to…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Webb v. AmblerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Prevedini v. Mobil Oil CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
- Mayron's Bake Shops, Inc. v. Arrow Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
- Jo-Mark Sand & Gravel Co. v. PantanellaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Atlantic Refining Co. v. O'KeefeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1945
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Southland Corp. v. VernonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1983
- Carnese v. MiddletonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Suarez v. ChristianDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 1981
- Yarbrough v. DemirjianConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. CovingtonConnecticut Superior Court · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.