Legal Opinion
Menard v. Gentile
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 29, 1986No. 3593PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHull, J.
The plaintiffs, Roger and Claire Menard, appeal from the judgment the trial court rendered against them in their breach of contract suit against the defendants. They claim error in certain of the trial court’s factual findings and in one of its legal conclu*212sions. We have determined that the trial court’s conclusion was legally and logically correct and its findings not clearly erroneous. Pandolphe’s Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, 181 Conn. 217, 221, 435 A.2d 24 (1980). Accordingly, we find no error.
In October of 1978, the defendants, Louis and Lisa Gentile, purchased three parcels of land…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Bianco v. Town of DarienSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
- Fuessenich v. DiNardoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Cecio Bros. v. Town of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Matthews v. FMC CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Steeltech Building Products, Inc. v. Edward Sutt Associates, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Metropolitan Property & Liability InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Aruba Hotel Enterprises N v. v. BelfontiDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2009
- State v. FranklinConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- Haley v. Marketing Corporation, No. Cv92 0128067 S (Jun. 17, 1993)Connecticut Superior Court · 1993
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.