green
Positive treatment
Trending · 73 recent citers
19.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Westview Carlton Group, LLC
(2×)
The instrumentality test for piercing the corporate veil, which the court applied in the present case, “requires, in any case but an express agency, proof of three elements: (1) Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; (2) that such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetrate the violation of a statutory o…
discussed
Cited "see"
O'Reilly v. Valletta
(2×)
See Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133, 147 , 799 A.2d 298 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wasko v. Farley
(2×)
See Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133, 147 , 799 A.2d 298 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Titan Real Estate Ventures, LLC v. M.J.C.C. Realty L.P. (In re Flanagan)
(2×)
See Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn.App. 133, 147 , 799 A.2d 298, 310 (Conn.App.2002), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (202). .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Flanagan
(2×)
See Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn.App. 133, 147 , 799 A.2d 298, 310 (Conn.App.2002), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (202). [7] At least one surveyor/commentator has made a further distinction between so-called "insider reverse piercing" and "outsider reverse piercing".
examined
Cited "see"
American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133, 139 , 799 A.2d 298 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
TZOVOLOS v. Wiseman
(2×)
See Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133, 147, 799 A.2d 298 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican
See Legnos v. Legnos, 70 Conn. App. 349 , 350 n.1, 797 A.2d 1184 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 48 (2002); see also State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389 , 468 n.56, 680 A.2d 147 (1996), aff'd after remand, 252 Conn. 128 , 750 A.2d 448 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 835 , 121 S. Ct. 93 , 148 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Nunez
See Legnos v. Legnos, 70 Conn. App. 349, 355 , 797 A.2d 1184 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 48 (2002). 2 Regarding the other Asherman factors, there was no likelihood of mistaken interpretation by the jury because the defendant offered evidence on the issue and argued an adverse inference against the state in his closing argument.
cited
Cited "see"
Mattson v. Mattson
See Legnos v. Legnos, 70 Conn. App. 349, 355 , 797 A.2d 1184 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 48 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Rosina v. Bilides B. E., No. Cv 02-0462976 S (Dec. 3, 2002)
See Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133 , 147 , 799 A.2d 298 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 802 A.2d 854 (2002); see also General Statutes § 34-133 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Parley v. Parley
(2×)
See Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133, 143 , 799 A.2d 298 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Henry
See Legnos v. Legnos, 70 Conn. App. 349, 355 , 797 A.2d 1184 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A. 2d 48 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
Schreck v. City of Stamford
(2×)
See Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133, 139 , 799 A.2d 298 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sturm v. Harb Development, LLC
(2×)
See, e.g., Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133, 147-48 , 799 A.2d 298 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Konefal v. Konefal
See, e.g., Legnos v. Legnos, 70 Conn. App. 349 , 350 n.1, 797 A.2d 1184 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 48 (2002). “[W]e are not required to review issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an inadequate brief. . . .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Titan Real Estate Ventures, LLC v. M.J.C.C. Realty L.P. (In re Flanagan)
(2×)
See, e.g., Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn.App. 133, 151 , 799 A.2d 298 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Flanagan
(2×)
See, e.g., Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell, 70 Conn. App. 133, 151 , 799 A.2d 298 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 49 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rocque v. DeMilo and Co., Inc.
See, e.g., Legnos v. Legnos, 70 Conn. App. 349 , 350 n.1, 797 A.2d 1184 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 911 , 806 A.2d 48 (2002). 7 During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the same mootness grounds.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LITCHFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
v.
MARY ANN HOWELL
v.
MARY ANN HOWELL
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 17, 2002.
Michael S. McKenna, in support of the petition., Scott M. Charmoy, in opposition.
Published
The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 70 Conn. App. 133 (AC 21465), is denied.
Michael S. McKenna, in support of the petition. Scott M. Charmoy, in opposition. Decided July 17, 2002SULLIVAN, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.