Legal Opinion

Heinonen v. Gupton

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided May 9, 2017No. AC38414PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The self-represented plaintiff, Mark Heinonen, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing this action alleging fraud on the part of the defendants, Wallace I. Gupton and Roberta S. Douglas, in connection with their purchase of property located in the town of Sherman. The dispositive claim in this appeal is whether the court improperly dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to his lack of standing. 1 We affirm the judgment of the court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. On February 6, 2015, the plaintiff filed a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Federal Deposit Insurance v. Peabody, N.E., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  2. Gold v. RowlandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
  3. D'ERAMO v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
  4. Caruso v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
  5. PNC Bank, N.A. v. KelepeczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Nassra v. NassraConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
  2. Tirado v. City of TorringtonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
  3. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. GallantConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021
  4. Heinonen v. GuptonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2017
  5. Lebanon Historical Society, Inc v. Attorney GeneralConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API