Legal Opinion
One Fawcett Place Ltd. Partnership v. Diamandis Communications, Inc.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 30, 1991No. 8647PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Per curiam
The plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s denial of its application for a prejudgment remedy.
Our review of the record, transcripts, oral decision of the court and briefs clearly indicates that the trial court did not follow the definition of civil probable cause as set forth in Ledgebrook Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Lusk Corporation, 172 Conn. 577, 583, 376 A.2d 60 (1977), and Three S. Development Co. v. Santore, 193 Conn. 174, 175, 474 A.2d 795 (1984). That definition has not changed since our Supreme Court enunciated in Wall v. Toomey, 52 Conn. 35, 36 (1884), that civil probable cause…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Three S. Development Co. v. SantoreSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Ledgebrook Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Lusk CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Wall v. ToomeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1884
3Cited by11 opinions
- Tyler v. SchnabelConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Mattson v. MattsonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Dunleavey v. Paris Ceramics USA, Inc.Connecticut Superior Court · 2002
- Bank of New Haven v. Marcus, No. Cv90 0275900 S (Jun. 25, 1991)Connecticut Superior Court · 1991
- Dahlgren v. F T Industries, Inc., No. 535560 (May 6, 1996)Connecticut Superior Court · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.