reservation clause in Connecticut

6 Connecticut opinions name it 1 courts 1931–2012 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Richardson v. Tumbridgegreen · 1930 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 2 sentences 1982See Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93 , 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662 , 142 A. 301 (1928); Mitchell v. Leavitt, 30 Conn. 587 (1862); Westlake v. Silva, 49 Cal. App. 2d 476 , 121 P.2d 872 (1942); LaPlant v. Schuman, 197 Iowa 466 , 196 N.W. 280 (1923); Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, 570 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). 1982See Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93 , 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662 , 142 A. 301 (1928); Mitchell v. Leavitt, 30 Conn. 587 (1862); Westlake v. Silva, 49 Cal. App. 2d 476 , 121 P.2d 872 (1942); LaPlant v. Schuman, 197 Iowa 466 , 196 N.W. 280 (1923); Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, 570 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).	1	1
Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commissiongreen moctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 1 sentence 1982See Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93 , 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662 , 142 A. 301 (1928); Mitchell v. Leavitt, 30 Conn. 587 (1862); Westlake v. Silva, 49 Cal. App. 2d 476 , 121 P.2d 872 (1942); LaPlant v. Schuman, 197 Iowa 466 , 196 N.W. 280 (1923); Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, 570 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Garrity v. McCaskey green conn · 1992 2 sentences 2012The fact that the Appellate Court failed to give any legal effect to the settlement agreement's express reservation of the plaintiff's right to assert the defense of nonarbitrability suggests that the court may have conflated the question of whether the arbitrators were empowered to decide arbitrability, under which the defendant's reservation of that defense would not bar the exercise of authority, and the merits of the arbitrability question, under which such a fact could be dispositive. [13] I agree with the majority that the plaintiff waived any claim regarding the existence of a condition 2012The fact that the Appellate Court failed to give any legal effect to the settlement agreement's express reservation of the plaintiff's right to assert the defense of nonarbitrability suggests that the court may have conflated the question of whether the arbitrators were empowered to decide arbitrability, under which the defendant's reservation of that defense would not bar the exercise of authority, and the merits of the arbitrability question, under which such a fact could be dispositive. [13] I agree with the majority that the plaintiff waived any claim regarding the existence of a condition	1	2012–2012
Centel Cable Television Co. of Ohio, Inc. v. Cook green ohio · 1991 2 sentences 2005A reservation clause does not operate to preclude other uses by the grantor not specifically reserved unless such intent is clearly expressed.” [Citations omitted.]); cf. Centel Cable Television Co. of Ohio, Inc. v. Cook, 58 Ohio St. 3d 8,10 , 567 N.E.2d 1010 (1991) (concluding that easement was exclusive and apportionable when granting instrument prohibited grantor from doing anything inconsistent with terms of easement or from constructing buildings or other structures within limits of easement). 2005A reservation clause does not operate to preclude other uses by the grantor not specifically reserved unless such intent is clearly expressed.” [Citations omitted.]); cf. Centel Cable Television Co. of Ohio, Inc. v. Cook, 58 Ohio St. 3d 8,10 , 567 N.E.2d 1010 (1991) (concluding that easement was exclusive and apportionable when granting instrument prohibited grantor from doing anything inconsistent with terms of easement or from constructing buildings or other structures within limits of easement).	1	2005–2005
Kannellos v. Great Northern Railway Co. green minn · 1923 1 sentence 1982See Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93 , 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662 , 142 A. 301 (1928); Mitchell v. Leavitt, 30 Conn. 587 (1862); Westlake v. Silva, 49 Cal. App. 2d 476 , 121 P.2d 872 (1942); LaPlant v. Schuman, 197 Iowa 466 , 196 N.W. 280 (1923); Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, 570 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).	1	1982–1982
Stueck v. G. C. Murphy Co. neutral · 1928 2 sentences 1982See Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93 , 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662 , 142 A. 301 (1928); Mitchell v. Leavitt, 30 Conn. 587 (1862); Westlake v. Silva, 49 Cal. App. 2d 476 , 121 P.2d 872 (1942); LaPlant v. Schuman, 197 Iowa 466 , 196 N.W. 280 (1923); Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, 570 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). 1982See Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93 , 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662 , 142 A. 301 (1928); Mitchell v. Leavitt, 30 Conn. 587 (1862); Westlake v. Silva, 49 Cal. App. 2d 476 , 121 P.2d 872 (1942); LaPlant v. Schuman, 197 Iowa 466 , 196 N.W. 280 (1923); Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, 570 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).	1	1982–1982
Mitchell v. Leavitt neutral conn · 1862 1 sentence 1982See Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93 , 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662 , 142 A. 301 (1928); Mitchell v. Leavitt, 30 Conn. 587 (1862); Westlake v. Silva, 49 Cal. App. 2d 476 , 121 P.2d 872 (1942); LaPlant v. Schuman, 197 Iowa 466 , 196 N.W. 280 (1923); Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, 570 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).	1	1982–1982
LaPlant v. Schuman green iowa · 1923 1 sentence 1982See Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93 , 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662 , 142 A. 301 (1928); Mitchell v. Leavitt, 30 Conn. 587 (1862); Westlake v. Silva, 49 Cal. App. 2d 476 , 121 P.2d 872 (1942); LaPlant v. Schuman, 197 Iowa 466 , 196 N.W. 280 (1923); Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, 570 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).	1	1982–1982
Westlake v. Silva green calctapp · 1942 2 sentences 1982See Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93 , 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662 , 142 A. 301 (1928); Mitchell v. Leavitt, 30 Conn. 587 (1862); Westlake v. Silva, 49 Cal. App. 2d 476 , 121 P.2d 872 (1942); LaPlant v. Schuman, 197 Iowa 466 , 196 N.W. 280 (1923); Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, 570 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978). 1982See Richardson v. Tumbridge, 111 Conn. 90, 93 , 149 A. 241 (1930); Stueck v. Murphy Co., 107 Conn. 656, 662 , 142 A. 301 (1928); Mitchell v. Leavitt, 30 Conn. 587 (1862); Westlake v. Silva, 49 Cal. App. 2d 476 , 121 P.2d 872 (1942); LaPlant v. Schuman, 197 Iowa 466 , 196 N.W. 280 (1923); Midella Enterprises, Inc. v. Missouri State Highway Commission, 570 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).	1	1982–1982
Georgia Power Co. v. Leonard green ga · 1939 2 sentences 1981Georgia Power Co. v. Leonard, 187 Ga. 608, 611 , 1 S.E.2d 579 (1939); 2 Thompson, Real Property (1961) §425, pp. 681, 691. 1981Georgia Power Co. v. Leonard, 187 Ga. 608, 611 , 1 S.E.2d 579 (1939); 2 Thompson, Real Property (1961) §425, pp. 681, 691.	1	1981–1981
American Bonding Co. of Baltimore v. Reynolds neutral mtd · 1913 1 sentence 1932American Bonding Co. v. Reynolds, 203 Fed. 356, 357 .	1	1932–1932
Bryan v. Bradley green · 1844 1 sentence 1931Bryan v. Bradley, 16 Conn. 474, 482 ; Knowlton v. New York, N. H. & H.	1	1931–1931

Where else courts name it

TX 95 (1926–2026) NY 44 (1871–2024) PA 27 (1905–2025) AL 24 (1871–1993) OH 23 (1876–2026) ND 22 (1951–2023) CA 20 (1885–2021) WA 18 (1893–2018) WV 15 (1907–2021) OK 15 (1924–2016) GA 10 (1925–2023) KY 9 (1912–1964) IL 9 (1943–2025) AR 8 (1897–2012) CO 8 (1959–2022) MS 7 (1953–2016) CT 6 (1931–2012) WI 6 (1890–2024) LA 6 (1965–2014) FL 6 (1918–2025) MA 6 (1870–2001) IN 5 (1871–1994) MT 5 (1909–2022) AZ 5 (1966–2004) WY 5 (1925–1987) OR 5 (1913–1984) NJ 5 (1927–2010) ID 4 (1978–2019) MI 4 (1892–2004) KS 4 (1905–2019) MD 4 (1992–2002) ME 4 (1973–2019) TN 3 (1925–1999) HI 3 (1905–2025) VT 3 (1911–2012) VA 3 (1881–2025) IA 3 (1929–2021) MN 3 (1943–1992) NM 3 (1966–2007) AK 3 (1987–1998) SD 3 (1949–2021) MO 3 (1903–2010) UT 2 (1982–2002) NC 2 (2009–2023) SC 2 (1952–1999)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check