Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Proctor
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtMcDONALD, J.
The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court properly found that the defendant, Gary Proctor, manifested assent to enter into an implied in fact contract with the plaintiff, Connecticut Light and Power Company, for the provision of electric services to a third party. We conclude that the Appellate Court properly determined that the trial court's finding that the parties had entered into an implied in fact contract under which the defendant would be responsible for payment for those services was not clearly erroneous. Connecticut Light & Power Co . v. Proctor , 158…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Vertex, Inc. v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Coelho v. Posi-Seal International, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Simmons v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Hess v. Dumouchel Paper Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Therrien v. Safeguard Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Lyme Land Conservation Trust, Inc. v. PlatnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2017
- United Concrete Products, Inc. v. NJR Construction, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021
- Downing v. DragoneConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
- Gleason v. DurdenConnecticut Appellate Court · 2022
- Martin v. Todd Arthurs Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2024
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.