First Nat'l Bank of Litchfield v. Miller, 912 A.2d 475 (Conn. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
First Nat'l Bank of Litchfield v. Miller, 912 A.2d 475 (Conn. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Melendez v. Deleo (connappct, 2015-08-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Melendez v. Deleo
Conn. App. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Medes v. Geico Corp., 97 Conn. App. 630, 639 , 905 A.2d 1249 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 940 , 912 A.2d 476 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" Auto Glass Express, Inc. v. Hanover Insurance (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See First National Bank of Litchfield v. Miller, 97 Conn. App. 388, 398 , 904 A.2d 1282 , cert. granted on other grounds, 280 Conn. 931 , 909 A.2d 957 , 280 Conn. 940 , 912 A.2d 475 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lombardi v. Cobb (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Medes v. Geico Corp., 97 Conn.App. 630, 638-39 , 905 A.2d 1249 (conflicting evidence as to extent of injuries and their effect on plaintiffs' daily lives), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 940 , 912 A.2d 476 (2006); Smith v. Lefebre, 92 Conn.App. 417, 423-27 , 885 A.2d 1232 (2005) (conflicting evidence as to nature and extent of injuries); Turner v. Pascarelli, 88 Conn.App. 720, 728-31 , 871 A.2d 1044 (2005) (conflicting evidence as to severity and duration of pain and extent to which plaintiff recovered from prior injuries); Schettino v. Labarba, 82 Conn.App. 445, 449-50 , 844 A.2d 923 (200…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
First National Bank of Litchfield
v.
Bruce v. Miller Et Al.
SC 17774.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 16, 2006.
912 A.2d 475
William C. Franklin, in support of the petition., Bruce V. Miller, pro se, and Linda M. Miller, pro se, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 97 Conn. App. 388 (AC 26278), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) the defendants had not accepted the boat; and (2) General Statutes § 42-lOOc applied to the transaction?”