Sanstrom v. Strickland
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Per curiam
This court previously dismissed this case as untimely in Sanstrom v. Strickland, 10 Conn. App. 166, 523 A.2d 507 (1987). Upon reconsideration, we find that the appellants timely sought and were granted an extension of time during which to file an appeal. Thus, the appeal is timely, and we will address its merits. Giordano Construction Co. v. Ross, 182 Conn. 577, 579, 438 A.2d 772 (1980). This opinion therefore supersedes the previous opinion issued in this case.
The plaintiffs1 appeal from the trial court’s discharge of a lis pendens which had been filed against real prop*212erty owned by the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Augeri v. C. F. Wooding Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Williams v. BartlettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Michael Papa Associates v. JulianSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Cavallo v. LewisConnecticut Appellate Court · 1984
- Giordano Construction Co. v. RossSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Zak v. WeismanConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. IsbanDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1994
- Bornyak v. Segneri, No. Cv99 033 49 85 S (Feb. 26, 2001)Connecticut Superior Court · 2001
- Knudsen v. Buettner, No. 32 07 08 (Jul. 20, 1998)Connecticut Superior Court · 1998
- R&R Stamford Convenience Mart Corp v. Wilton Motiva Associates LLCDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.