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

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedApril 14, 1998

DocketAC 17076

StatusPublished

This text of 706 A.2d 1391 (BICC Brand-Rex Co. v. Arthur, Harris & Associates, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 A.2d 1391, 48 Conn. App. 423, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bicc-brand-rex-co-v-arthur-harris-associates-inc-connappct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack