Diamond v. Marcinek, 612 A.2d 55 (Conn. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Diamond v. Marcinek, 612 A.2d 55 (Conn. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Holly Hill Holdings v. Lowman (connappct, 1993-01-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Holly Hill Holdings v. Lowman (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Diamond v. Marcinek, 27 Conn. App. 353 , 606 A.2d 1001 , cert. granted, 223 Conn. 910 , 612 A.2d 55 (1992). 13 The plaintiff does concede that irrespective of the property’s status under the regulations, it was still required to provide notice to the DEP under § 22a-449 (d)-l (d) of the regulations 14 and that it failed to do so.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Szczapa v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
The court noted that such a reading of the statute would “contradict what [the legislature] had clearly and unambiguously stated in § 31-284.” Hoyt v. Second Taxing District, supra, 183 Conn. 511 ; see also Christopherson v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 27 Conn. App. 917 , 606 A.2d 1333 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 910 , 612 A.2d 55 (1992) (per curiam opinion affirming trial court decision barring employee from maintaining action against employer for injuries sustained in automobile accident when employee passenger in automobile owned by employer).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James B. Diamond
v.
George Marcinek
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 9, 1992.
612 A.2d 55
Kenneth J. McDonnell, in support of the petition., Richard F. Paladino, in opposition.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 27 Conn. App. 353, is granted, limited to the following question:

“In the circumstances of this case, was the plaintiff entitled to rescission and restitution relating to rescission because of the defendants’ failure to disclose the existence of a service station in violation of General Statutes §§ 22a-134 or 22a-134a or applicable administrative regulations?”