Legal Opinion
McClintock v. Rivard
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 9, 1991No. 14009PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBorden, J.
The plaintiffs, James H. McClintock and Mary J. McClintock, brought this action for specific performance and damages against the defendants, Rene R. Rivard and Jenney T. Rivard, for failure to purchase certain real property from the plaintiffs pursuant to a contract. The defendants filed a counterclaim. The trial court rendered judgment and awarded damages on the plaintiffs’ complaint, and found for the plaintiffs on the defendants’ counterclaim. The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023.
*419The plaintiffs claim…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Miller v. ApplebySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Bead Chain Manufacturing Co. v. Saxton Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- West Haven Sound Development Corp. v. City of West HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- J. Frederick Scholes Agency v. MitchellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. OuelletteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Citino v. Redevelopment AgencyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Miller v. BourgoinConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Western Dermatology Consultants, P.C. v. VitalWorks, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- McCullough v. Waterside AssociatesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.