Legal Opinion
Chanosky v. City Building Supply Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 25, 1965PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlcorn, J.
These cases, although unrelated, are treated together because of the identity of the immediate issue. The appellants in these eases were, on our motion, cited to appear and show cause why the appeal in each case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute with proper diligence. Practice Book § 696. No cause was shown, and the appeals were dismissed. We granted reargument, and it produced no subject deserving consideration other than the assertion of counsel that they had not understood the purport of Practice Book § 696 and were, therefore, taken by surprise by its enforcement. We have…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bronson v. President of Mechanics BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
- State v. FensterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- Tkaczyk v. LevineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- Tuozzolo v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- Wells v. WellsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Prevedini v. Mobil Oil CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
- Norwich Land Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- LaReau v. ReinckeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
- Royce v. Freedom of Information CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Basilicato v. Department of Public Utility ControlSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.