Raudat v. Leary
Connecticut Appellate Court
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
- Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Jaffe v. State Department of HealthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
- Dacruz v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- State v. McClarySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Doe v. RoeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Hayes v. CamelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Bowden v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Hayes v. Caspers, Ltd.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Meribear Prods., Inc. v. FrankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.