Legal Opinion

Paranto v. Ball

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 29, 1946PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDickenson, J.

This is an appeal from the action of the trial court in setting aside a verdict for the plaintiff in an action to recover treble damages under the statute concerning vexatious suits, General Statutes, § 6000. The jury could have found the following facts: The defendant Ball owned several tenements. His agent Taft was in charge of renting them and customarily collected the rents. The plaintiff Paranto, with his family, had occupied one of these tenements since about January, 1940, on a month-to-month tenancy with rent of $25 payable in advance. Paranto customarily paid the rent between the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McGann v. AllenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  2. Brodrib v. DobersteinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  3. Calvo v. BartolottaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Vandersluis v. WeilSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
  2. Mulligan v. RiouxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  3. Ledgebrook Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Lusk CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
  4. McNeil v. JordanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLPSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007

18 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