Legal Opinion
Rosenfield v. Cymbala
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided September 10, 1996No. 15172PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDupont, C. J.
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court properly rendered the summary judgment sought by the defendant Rose Marie Cymbala1 against the plaintiffs2 3on the ground that their foreclosure action against her is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The pertinent facts and procedural history are not in dispute. The plaintiff brought the present foreclosure action seeking immediate possession of certain real property located in the town of Essex and a deficiency judgment against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Batick v. SeymourSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- D.H.R. Construction Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- People v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Rosenfield v. Rogin, Nassau, Caplan, Lassman & Hirtle, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Rosenfield v. I. David Marder & Associates, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Bruno v. GellerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
- Moss v. FosterConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Loiseau v. Board of Tax ReviewConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.