Valentine v. Labow, 909 A.2d 963 (Conn. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Valentine v. Labow, 909 A.2d 963 (Conn. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (43 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ryder v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn. (connappct, 2024-08-06)
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Ryder v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436, 453 , 897 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933 , 909 A.2d 963 (2006).
discussed Cited "see" GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford
Conn. App. Ct. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436, 451 , 897 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933 , 909 A.2d 963 (2006). “[T]he purpose of a reargument is ... to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts. ...
discussed Cited "see" Davis v. Commissioner of Correction (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See James v. Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A, Inc., 125 Conn. App. 174 , 176 n.1, 6 A.3d 1199 (2010) (“[i]n tight of our conclusion that summary judgment was appropriate on that ground, we do not address the court’s alternate basis for rendering summary judgment or the plaintiffs challenge thereto”), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 916 , 13 A.3d 1103 (2011), citing Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436 , 448 n.11, 897 A.2d 624 (“[bjecause we conclude that the court correctly determined that the defendant’s fraudulent conveyance claim was barred by the three year statute of limitations contained in Gene…
discussed Cited "see" James v. Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A., Inc.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436 , 448 n.11, 897 A.2d 624 , cert, denied, 280 Conn. 933 , 909 A.2d 963 (2006). 2 In their respective affidavits, Husted, Camire and Paul all averred that “[n]o one has ever complained about any slippery substance or residue being present on the pool steps where this accident is alleged to have occurred before [the plaintiff] claims she fell in June, 2007.”
cited Cited "see" Booker v. Jarjura
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Labow v. Rubin, 95 Conn. App. 454, 461-63 , 897 A.2d 136 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933 , 909 A.2d 960 (2006).
cited Cited "see" State v. Stephenson
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436, 452 , 897 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933 , 909 A.2d 963 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alvarez v. Middletown
Conn. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., James v. Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A, Inc., 125 Conn. App. 174 , 176 n.1, 6 A.3d 1199 (2010) (‘‘[i]n light of our conclusion that summary judgment was appropriate on that ground, we do not address the court’s alternate basis for rendering summary judgment or the plaintiff’s challenge thereto’’), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 916 , 13 A.3d 1103 (2011), citing Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436 , 448 n.11, 897 A.2d 624 (‘‘[b]ecause we conclude that the court correctly determined that the defendant’s fraudulent conveyance claim was barred by the three year statute of limitation…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Tuite v. Hospital of Central Connecticut
Conn. App. Ct. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436, 452-53 , 897 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933 , 909 A.2d 963 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Watts v. Chittenden
Conn. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
“The date of the act or omission complained of is the date when the . . . conduct of the defendant occurs . . . .” Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 144 Conn. 170, 173 , 127 A.2d 814 (1956); see also Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436 , 445 n.8, 897 A.2d 624 (“§ 52-577 is an occurrence statute and ... its limitation period does not begin when the plaintiff first discovers an injury” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933 , 909 A. 2d 963 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Cooperman
Conn. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
“The date of the act or omission complained of is the date when the . . . conduct of the defendant occurs . . . .” Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 144 Conn. 170, 173 , 127 A.2d 814 (1956); see also Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436 , 445 n.8, 897 A.2d 624 (“§ 52-577 is an occurrence statute and ... its limitation period does not begin when the plaintiff first discovers an injury” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933 , 909 A.2d 963 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Misata v. Con-Way Transportation Services, Inc.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
The manner in which [this] discretion is exercised will not be disturbed so long as the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, P.C. v. Cadle Co., 278 Conn. 92, 107 , 897 A.2d 58 (2006); see also Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn. App. 436, 451 , 897 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 933 , 909 A.2d 963 (2006). 13 We note that under unusual circumstances, we may venture from the well trodden path.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RICHARD H. VALENTINE, TRUSTEE
v.
MYRNA LABOW
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 31, 2006.
909 A.2d 963
Daniel Shepro and Nathalie Feola-Guerrieri, in support of the petition., Barbara M. Schellenberg and Gwen E. Adamson, in opposition.
Published

The petition by the named defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 95 Conn. App. 436 (AC 24483), is denied.

VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.