green
Positive treatment
10.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Solon v. Slater
The burden is on the plaintiff to plead and prove at least some improper motive or improper means . . . on the part of the defendants.’’ (Citations omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Solomon v. Aberman, 196 Conn. 359, 365 , 493 A.2d 193 (1985); see American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83 , 90–94, 920 A.2d 357 (defendant was liable for tortious interference with business expectancy because she acted with improper motive and employed improper means to divert customers away from plaintiff), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 901 , 931 A.2d 261 (2007). ‘‘Stated simpl…
discussed
Cited "see"
Solon v. Slater
The burden is on the plaintiff to plead and prove at least some improper motive or improper means . . . on the part of the defendants.’’ (Citations omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Solomon v. Aberman, 196 Conn. 359, 365 , 493 A.2d 193 (1985); see American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83 , 90–94, 920 A.2d 357 (defendant was liable for tortious interference with business expectancy because she acted with improper motive and employed improper means to divert customers away from plaintiff), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 901 , 931 A.2d 261 (2007). ‘‘Stated simpl…
discussed
Cited "see"
Li v. Yaggi
See Kline v. Kline , 101 Conn. App. 402 , 404 n.3, 922 A.2d 261 (declining to review defendant appellee's alternate ground for affirmance because court did not find requisite facts for her claim of equitable estoppel), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 901 , 931 A.2d 263 (2007) ; see also Conservation Commission v. Red 11, LLC , 119 Conn. App. 377 , 388, 987 A.2d 398 (record inadequate to review defendant's claim of municipal estoppel), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 924 , 991 A.2d 566 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
AMERICAN DIAMOND EXCHANGE, INC. v. Alpert
The defendant Jurgita Karobkaite 1 appeals 2 from the judgment of the trial court, following a remand from the Appellate Court; see American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83 , 920 A.2d 367 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 901 , 931 A.2d 261 (2007); for a recalculation of damages based on the existing record.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lynch
See State v. Cote, 101 Conn. App. 527, 539 , 922 A.2d 322 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 901 , 931 A.2d 266 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mish
See State v. Cote, 101 Conn. App. 527 , 532 n.6, 922 A.2d 322 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 901 , 931 A.2d 266 (2007). 7 General Statutes § 54-56d (d) provides in relevant part: “The examination shall be completed within fifteen days from the date it was ordered and the examiners shall prepare and sign, without notarization, a written report and file such report with the court within twenty-one business days of the date of the order.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lopez v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc.
See, e.g., American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83, 96 , 920 A.2d 357 (‘‘whe[n] there are two permissible views of the evidence, the [fact finder’s] choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 901 , 931 A.2d 261 (2007).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. CALCO Construction & Development Co.
See, e.g., American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83 , 92–93, 920 A.2d 357 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 901 , 931 A.2d 261 (2007).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AMERICAN DIAMOND EXCHANGE, INC.
v.
Scott ALPERT et al.
v.
Scott ALPERT et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 5, 2007.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Steven D. Ecker, Hartford, in support of the petition.
William F. Gallagher and Hugh D. Hughes, in opposition.
The petition by the defendant Jurgita Karobkaite for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 101 Conn.App. 83, 920 A.2d 357 (2007), is denied.