Legal Opinion
Lindholm v. Brant
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 3, 2007No. SC 17729PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SULLIVAN, J.
The plaintiff, Kerstin Lindholm, appeals 1 from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the named defendant, Peter M. Brant, 2 on the plaintiffs claim of conversion of a painting by Andy Warhol entitled “Red Elvis” (Red Elvis). The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court improperly determined that the defendant was a buyer in the ordinary course of business and, therefore, lawfully took all of the plaintiffs rights in Red Elvis pursuant to General Statutes § 42a-2-403 (2). 3 We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Friezo v. FriezoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Porter v. WertzNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Porter v. WertzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Chijian Zhang v. Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Ginsberg v. Union Surety & Guaranty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Davis v. CarrollDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- PNC Bank, N.A. v. KelepeczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- State v. SheriffSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- Hudson City Savings Bank v. HellmanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2025
- Iacurci v. SaxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2014