Glass v. Peter Mitchell Constr. Leasing & Dev. Corp., 723 A.2d 317 (Conn. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Glass v. Peter Mitchell Constr. Leasing & Dev. Corp., 723 A.2d 317 (Conn. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Moran v. Morneau (connappct, 2013-01-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Moran v. Morneau
Conn. App. Ct. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Beers v. Westport Bank & Trust, 50 Conn. App. 671, 676 , 719 A.2d 58 (“[a] court must first find probable cause before a prejudgment remedy of attachment of real property may issue”), cert. denied, 247 Conn. 940 , 723 A.2d 317 (1998).
discussed Cited "see" Kalams v. Giacchetto (2×)
Conn. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glass v. Peter Mitchell Construction Leasing & Development Corp., 50 Conn. App. 539, 547 , 718 A.2d 79 (defendant not required to show prejudice when trial court improperly found unity of interest among defendants and granted only one set of peremptory challenges), cert. granted, 247 Conn. 938 , 723 A.2d 317 (1998) (appeal withdrawn July 6, 1999).
discussed Cited "see" Chemical Bank v. Coan
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Beers v. West-port Bank and Trust Co., 50 Conn.App. 671 , 719 A.2d 58 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 940 , 723 A.2d 317 (1998) (noting that the procedural protections requiring a finding of probable cause before attachment lessened the need for strict compliance with the statute; although the attachment listed the incorrect court to which it was returnable, it provided sufficient notice of the attachment); Joseph v. Donovan, 114 Conn. 79 , 157 A. 638, 639 (Conn.1931) (holding that the defect, listing the wrong court from which the attachment issued, was too inconsequential to merit invalidating…
discussed Cited "see" Walsh v. Town of Stonington Water Pollution Control Authority (2×)
Conn. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Glass v. Peter Mitchell Construction Leasing & Developing Corp., 50 Conn. App. 539, 543 , 718 A.2d 79 , cert. granted, 247 Conn. 938 , 723 A.2d 317 (1998); (appeal withdrawn July 6, 1999); Beach v. Regional School District Number 13, 42 Conn. App. 542, 549 , 682 A.2d 118 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 939 , 684 A.2d 710 (1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Efthimiou v. Smith, No. Cv99 036 76 39 S (Jan. 27, 2000)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
"The remedy of attaching and securing a defendant's property to satisfy a judgment which the plaintiff may recover is unknown to the common law and is founded on and regulated by our statutory law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lauf v. James, 33 Conn. App. 223 , 227 , 635 A.2d 300 (1993); see also Beers v. Westport Bank Trust Co., 50 Conn. App. 671 , 674 , 719 A.2d 58 , cert. denied, 247 Conn. 940 , 723 A.2d 317 (1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MACELLIS GLASS, (ESTATE OF JUDITH W. GLASS)
v.
PETER MITCHELL CONSTRUCTION LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
SC 16045.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 18, 1998.
723 A.2d 317
Vincent M. Musto, in support of the petition., Wesley W. Horton and Susan M. Cormier, in opposition.
Published

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 50 Conn. App. 539 (AC 16730), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in finding a unity of interest for purposes of voir dire pursuant to General[*939] Statutes § 51-241 and (2) was the defendant entitled to a new trial as a result of that abuse of discretion?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16045. Vincent M. Musto, in support of the petition. Wesley W. Horton and Susan M. Cormier, in opposition. Decided November 18, 1998