Legal Opinion
Conti v. Murphy
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided September 11, 1990No. 8809PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCretella, J.
In this action for partition, the defendant appeals from the dismissal of his counterclaim. The proceedings from which this case arises are more fully expounded in Murphy’s Appeal from Probate, 22 Conn. App. 490, 578 A.2d 661 (1990).
The following facts are essential. The parties are the six children of Katherine B. Murphy, deceased. The *176defendant, a son of the decedent, was a coexecutor of his late mother’s will until he was removed by the Probate Court. Under the will, any of the children had a right to purchase the former family residence by offering a price equivalent to the property’s…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Halpern v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Park City Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health CareSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Henry F. Raab Connecticut, Inc. v. J. W. Fisher Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Fishman v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1985
- Southland Corp. v. VernonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1983
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Town of GrotonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Lundborg v. LawlerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Cameron v. SantiagoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2024
- Saracino v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.Connecticut Superior Court · 2007
- Ati Pharmaceuticals v. Lerner, No. Cv91 0280536 S (Aug. 1, 1991)Connecticut Superior Court · 1991
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.