Legal Opinion
Mannweiler v. LaFlamme
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 31, 1995No. 15009PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNorcott, J.
In this action for a declaratory judgment and for other relief, the plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly: *28(1) found that there was a common scheme of development; (2) concluded that a purported revocation of the right to restrict certain development was valid; and (3) concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to enforce certain restrictive covenants. We conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because certain indispensable parties had not been given notice…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Sturman v. SochaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- National Transportation Co., Inc. v. ToquetSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- Gaudio v. GaudioConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- Wilson v. KelleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Serrani v. Board of EthicsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Connecticut, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Giulietti v. GiuliettiConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Gay & Lesbian Law Students Ass'n v. Board of TrusteesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Office of Consumer Counsel v. Department of Public Utility ControlSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.