Legal Opinion
Beucler v. Lloyd
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided July 6, 2004No. AC 24158PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BERDON, J.
The plaintiffs, Robert Beucler and Lori Beucler, appeal from the judgment of the trial court accepting the report of the attorney fact finder and rendering judgment in favor of the defendants, Michael J. Lloyd and James Lloyd, doing business as J. M. Company. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly rendered judgment for the defendants on the basis of a notice requirement contained in the parties’ construction contract that did not comport with the plaintiffs’ warranty rights pursuant to the New Home Warranties Act, General Statutes § 47-116 et seq. We agree…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Dills v. Town of EnfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Bowman v. 1477 Central Avenue Apartments, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Wilcox Trucking, Inc. v. Mansour Builders, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- Romano v. City of DerbyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Cashman v. CalvoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Beucler v. LloydSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Beucler v. LloydSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Silver Hill Hospital, Inc. v. KesslerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
- Winthrop House Ass'n v. Brookside Elm Ltd. PartnersDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2005