Legal Opinion

Raudat v. Leary

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided March 15, 2005No. AC 24491PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOpinion DiPENTIMA, J.

These appeals involve the sale of a horse named Darryl. The defendant, Denise Leary, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Sharon Raudat, after a trial to the court. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by allowing an admitted expert to give lay opinion, (2) lacked a proper evidentiary foundation on which to award damages and (3) made contradictory findings of fact in its decision. The plaintiff cross appeals, claiming that the court abused its *46discretion by not awarding her consequential damages. We reverse the judgment of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  2. Jaffe v. State Department of HealthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
  3. Dacruz v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
  4. State v. McClarySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  5. Doe v. RoeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
  2. Hayes v. CamelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  3. Bowden v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
  4. Hayes v. Caspers, Ltd.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2005
  5. Meribear Prods., Inc. v. FrankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018

7 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