BICC Brand-Rex Co. v. Arthur, Harris & Associates, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

BICC Brand-Rex Co. v. Arthur, Harris & Associates, Inc.

706 A.2d 1391, 48 Conn. App. 423, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 173

Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided April 14, 1998·No. AC 17076·Published

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal implicates Connecticut’s corporate long arm service of process statute. General Statutes § 33-929 (f) (1). The dispositive issue in this case is whether the contract between the parties was to be substantially performed in this state. The trial court found as a fact that the contract was to be substantially performed outside Connecticut. That factual finding was supported by the evidence and, thus, cannot be overturned by this court. See Cromwell Commons Associates v. Koziura, 21 Conn. App. 1, 5, 570 A.2d 1131 (1990).

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal implicates Connecticut’s corporate long arm service of process statute. General Statutes § 33-929 (f) (1). The dispositive issue in this case is whether the contract between the parties was to be substantially performed in this state. The trial court found as a fact that the contract was to be substantially performed outside Connecticut. That factual finding was supported by the evidence and, thus, cannot be overturned by this court. See Cromwell Commons Associates v. Koziura, 21 Conn. App. 1, 5, 570 A.2d 1131 (1990).

The judgment is affirmed.

BICC Brand-Rex Co. v. Arthur, Harris & Associates, Inc., 706 A.2d 1391, 48 Conn. App. 423, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 173 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

706 A.2d 1391 (BICC Brand-Rex Co. v. Arthur, Harris & Associates, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related