Martone v. Martone, 617 A.2d 166 (Conn. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Martone v. Martone, 617 A.2d 166 (Conn. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Freshnex v. Mount Vernon Strategies, No. Cv-00-0437778s (Jan. 19, 2001) (connsuperct, 2001-01-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Freshnex v. Mount Vernon Strategies, No. Cv-00-0437778s (Jan. 19, 2001)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2001 · confidence medium
"Plaintiffs seeking recovery for unjust enrichment must prove (1) that the defendants were benefitted, (2) that the defendants unjustly did not pay the plaintiffs for the benefits, and (3) that the failure of payment was to the plaintiffs' detriment." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 201.
cited Cited "see" RENT-A-PC, INC. v. Rental Management, Inc.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Polverari v. Peatt, 29 Conn. App. 191, 200 , 614 A.2d 484 , cert. denied, 224 Conn. 913 , 617 A.2d 166 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" Iovieno v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Martone v. Martone, 28 Conn. App. 208, 217 , 611 A.2d 896 , cert. denied, 224 Conn. 909 , 617 A.2d 166 (1992) (court had no jurisdiction and, therefore, no discretion to alter prior distribution of assets that had been subject of parties’ stipulation).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shay v. Gallagher, No. Cv 93-0302341 (Jan. 23, 1995)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id., 37-38 , and cases cited therein; see also Polverari v. Peatt, 29 Conn. App. 191 , CT Page 430-O 199, 614 A.2d 484 , cert. denied, 224 Conn. 913 , 617 A.2d 166 (1992); Feng v. Dart Hill Realty, Inc., 26 Conn. App. 380 , 383 , 601 A.2d 547 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 912 , 612 A.2d 59 (1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frances Martone
v.
Frank M. Martone
SC 14628.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 30, 1992.
617 A.2d 166
Steven D. Ecker, in support of the petition., Max F. Brunswick, in opposition.
Published

The plaintiff’s cross petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 28 Conn. App. 208 (AC 10420), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Having determined that a portion of the lump sum alimony award must be set aside, did the Appellate[*910] Court properly remand for a modified judgment rather than for a new hearing, or for a trial on all of the financial issues?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14628. Steven D. Ecker, in support of the petition. Max F. Brunswick, in opposition. Decided October 30, 1992