Feen v. New England Benefit Companies, 852 A.2d 739 (Conn. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Feen v. New England Benefit Companies, 852 A.2d 739 (Conn. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cornacchia v. Environmental Protection Commission (connappct, 2008-07-29)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Cornacchia v. Environmental Protection Commission
Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Department of Environmental Protection, Guidelines for Upland Review Area Regulations Under Connecticut’s Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Act (1997).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Prestige Builders, LLC v. Inland Wetlands Commission, 79 Conn. App. 710 , 712 n.3, 831 A.2d 290 (2003), cert. denied, 269 Conn. 909 , 852 A.2d 739 (2004). 2 The plaintiffs also claim that the commission improperly concluded that the proposed activities would pose a significant impact on the wetlands and watercourses despite expert testimony that established that the proposed activities would not have su…
discussed Cited "see" Collard and Roe, PC v. Klein
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Feen v. New England Benefit Cos., 81 Conn. App. 772, 777 , 841 A.2d 1193 (“ ‘[i]t is a well established principle that arguments cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief ”), cert, denied, 269 Conn. 910 , 852 A.2d 739 (2004). 4 Our conclusion that Arthur Klein’s requests for a jury trial in both the fraudulent conveyance action and the interpleader action were untimely under General Statutes § 52-215 should not be interpreted to mean that fraudulent conveyance and interpleader actions are not equitable actions within the terms of General Statutes § 52-215.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Stephen G.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
“Our authority, when reviewing the findings of a judge, is *698 circumscribed by the deference we must give to decisions of the trier of fact, who is usually in a superior position to appraise and weigh the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) LaVelle v. Ecoair Corp., 74 Conn. App. 710, 716 , 814 A.2d 421 (2003); see also Feen v. New England Benefit Cos., 81 Conn. App. 772, 780 , 841 A.2d 1193 (noting trial court’s “superior position to evaluate those factors as they coalesce at trial and the disparate ability of a reviewing court to glean such things from the written record�…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CARL S. FEEN
v.
NEW ENGLAND BENEFIT COMPANIES, INC.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 2, 2004.
852 A.2d 739
Wesley W. Horton, Daniel J. Krisch, Timothy P. Pothin, Marisa A. Bellair, in support of the petition., IraB. Grudberg and Alinor C. Sterling, in opposition.
Published

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 81 Conn. App. 772 (AC 23903), is denied.