Legal Opinion

Melillo v. Spiro

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 8, 1982PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

In this action for strict foreclosure, the named defendant has appealed from the trial court’s denial of his second “motion to reopen judg ment and extend law day.” By way of this motion, the named defendant sought to obtain a six month extension in the law day set for March 1, 1980. A motion to open a judgment of strict foreclosure is addressed to the discretion of the trial court; see General Statutes § 49-15; and “ ‘unless that discretion was abused or was based upon some error in law, the denial of the motion must stand.’ Carrington v. Muhlfeld, 122 Conn. 334, 337, 189 A.2d 184 [1937].”…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Carrington v. MuhlfeldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
  2. Sebastiano v. CordeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. SullivanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  2. Connecticut National Bank v. N. E. Owen II, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1990
  3. Society for Savings v. StramagliaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  4. New Haven Savings Bank v. GurlandConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
  5. Society for Savings v. StramagliaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API