Legal Opinion
Perl v. Case
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided January 1, 1985No. 2345PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Per curiam
The present action was brought to collect a sum due and owing pursuant to a promissory note executed by the defendant in conjunction with the purchase of an accounting practice. The matter was tried to a trial referee and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed1 therefrom and, thereafter, the plaintiff cross appealed.
The defendant claims that the trial referee erred (1) in the construction of the agreement between the parties, (2) in requiring the defendant to prove his special defense of oral modification by clear and satisfactory proof, (3) in drawing an…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- Bead Chain Manufacturing Co. v. Saxton Products, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- McGaffin v. RobertsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. ColeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. DowlingConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
- Suarez-Negrete v. TrottaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. WintersConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- Harris Calorific Sales Co. v. Manifold Systems, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- Moore v. SergiConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.