Legal Opinion
Liljedahl Bros. v. Grigsby
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 12, 1990No. 13801PublishedCited by 195 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The principal issue in this case is whether a contractor who has failed to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Act; General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; can nonetheless recover in *346quasi contract by demonstrating unjust enrichment1 on the part of the homeowner for whom the contractor has performed work. The plaintiff brought an action in two counts against the defendants James A. Grigsby and Karen P. Grigsby, alleging its right to recover for the unpaid balance due for construction services, materials and labor provided, in accordance with an oral agreement, for home…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Blancato v. Feldspar Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Barrett Builders v. MillerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Burns v. KoellmerConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Fraser v. HenningerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Boland v. CatalanoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by195 opinions
- Habetz v. CondonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. HirschfeldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Zamstein v. MarvastiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del GrossoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Doe v. MarselleConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
190 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.