Legal Opinion
Frantz v. Romaine
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided January 31, 2006No. AC 25850PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DUPONT, J.
The plaintiff, L. Scott Frantz, in this declaratory judgment action, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Rutherford R. Romaine and Carol Grey Romaine. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court (1) failed to follow fundamental principles of the law of contracts relating to simultaneous agreements in reaching its conclusion that an agreement of purchase option signed by the parties is no longer operative, (2) improperly found that the plaintiff waived his rights under that agreement of purchase option and (3) incorrectly con-*387elud…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Batter Building Materials Co. v. KirschnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Levine v. Advest, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Lavigne v. LavigneConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
- Monetary Funding Group, Inc. v. PluchinoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Union Trust Co. v. JacksonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Roy v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Fuchs v. Allstate InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Arch Ins. Co. v. Centerplan Constr. Co., LLCCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2021
- Cruz v. Visual Perceptions, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Frantz v. RomaineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.