Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2017 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Clem Martone Construction, LLC v. Depinogreen2 sentences2014Pursuant to the doctrine of substantial performance, a technical breach of the terms of a contract is excused, not because compliance with the terms is objectively impossible, but because actual performance is so simi- lar to the required performance that any breach that may have been committed is immaterial.’’ (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Id.; accord Clem Martone Con- struction, LLC v. DePino, 145 Conn. App. 316, 336 , 77 A.3d 760 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 947 , 80 A.3d 906 (2013); 15 R. 2014Pursuant to the doctrine of substantial performance, a technical breach of the terms of a contract is excused, not because compliance with the terms is objectively impossible, but because actual performance is so simi- lar to the required performance that any breach that may have been committed is immaterial.’’ (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Id.; accord Clem Martone Con- struction, LLC v. DePino, 145 Conn. App. 316, 336 , 77 A.3d 760 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 947 , 80 A.3d 906 (2013); 15 R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mastroianni v. Fairfield County Paving, LLC
green
2 sentences2017Pursuant to the doctrine of substantial performance, a technical breach of the terms of a contract is excused, not because compliance with the terms is objectively impossible, but because actual performance is so similar to the required performance that any breach that may have been committed is immaterial." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mastroianni v. Fairfield County Paving, LLC , 106 Conn.App. 330 , 340-41, 942 A.2d 418 (2008). 2017Pursuant to the doctrine of substantial performance, a technical breach of the terms of a contract is excused, not because compliance with the terms is objectively impossible, but because actual performance is so similar to the required performance that any breach that may have been committed is immaterial." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mastroianni v. Fairfield County Paving, LLC , 106 Conn.App. 330 , 340-41, 942 A.2d 418 (2008). | 2 | 2013–2017 |
Fernandes v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2008Pursuant to the doctrine of substantial performance, a *341 technical breach of the terms of a contract is excused, not because compliance with the terms is objectively impossible, but because actual performance is so similar to the required performance that any breach that may have been committed is immaterial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Borrelli v. H & H Contracting, Inc., 100 Conn. App. 680 , 692 n.6, 919 A.2d 500 , cert. granted on other grounds, 282 Conn. 925 , 926 A.2d 665 (2007). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gray v. Commissioner of Correction
green
1 sentence2008Pursuant to the doctrine of substantial performance, a *341 technical breach of the terms of a contract is excused, not because compliance with the terms is objectively impossible, but because actual performance is so similar to the required performance that any breach that may have been committed is immaterial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Borrelli v. H & H Contracting, Inc., 100 Conn. App. 680 , 692 n.6, 919 A.2d 500 , cert. granted on other grounds, 282 Conn. 925 , 926 A.2d 665 (2007). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Borrelli v. H AND H CONTRACTING, INC.
neutral
2 sentences2008Pursuant to the doctrine of substantial performance, a *341 technical breach of the terms of a contract is excused, not because compliance with the terms is objectively impossible, but because actual performance is so similar to the required performance that any breach that may have been committed is immaterial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Borrelli v. H & H Contracting, Inc., 100 Conn. App. 680 , 692 n.6, 919 A.2d 500 , cert. granted on other grounds, 282 Conn. 925 , 926 A.2d 665 (2007). 2008Pursuant to the doctrine of substantial performance, a *341 technical breach of the terms of a contract is excused, not because compliance with the terms is objectively impossible, but because actual performance is so similar to the required performance that any breach that may have been committed is immaterial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Borrelli v. H & H Contracting, Inc., 100 Conn. App. 680 , 692 n.6, 919 A.2d 500 , cert. granted on other grounds, 282 Conn. 925 , 926 A.2d 665 (2007). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Rudder v. MAMANASCO LAKE PARK ASS'N, INC.
green
1 sentence2007Pursuant to the doctrine of substantial performance, a technical breach of the terms of a contract is excused, not because compliance with the terms is objectively impossible, but because actual performance is so similar to the required performance that any breach that may have been committed is immaterial." Id., 221-22, 890 A.2d 645 . [7] This determination was crucial both to the plaintiffs' claim and to the defendant's counterclaim. | 1 | 2007–2007 |