Biller Associates v. RTE. 156 Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Biller Associates v. RTE. 156 Realty Co.

734 A.2d 566, 248 Conn. 916, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 160

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedApril 27, 1999

DocketSC 16098

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 734 A.2d 566 (Biller Associates v. RTE. 156 Realty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Biller Associates v. RTE. 156 Realty Co., 734 A.2d 566, 248 Conn. 916, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 160 (Colo. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 52 Conn. App. 18 (AC 16708), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Do General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 38-69, now § 38a-723, and § 38-72 (h)-6, now § 38a-788-6, of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, under the circumstances of this case render invalid an employment contract between a licensed public adjuster and [917]*917a property owner when the property owner was not named on the insurance policy?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16098. Wesley W. Horton and Kenneth J. Bartschi, in support of the petition. Paige J. Everin, in opposition. Decided April 27, 1999

“2. Did the Appellate Court improperly reverse the trial court’s judgment that under the facts of this case the plaintiff should recover in quantum meruit?”

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

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 52 Conn. App. 18 (AC 16708), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Do General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 38-69, now § 38a-723, and § 38-72 (h)-6, now § 38a-788-6, of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, under the circumstances of this case render invalid an employment contract between a licensed public adjuster and [917]*917a property owner when the property owner was not named on the insurance policy?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16098. Wesley W. Horton and Kenneth J. Bartschi, in support of the petition. Paige J. Everin, in opposition. Decided April 27, 1999

“2. Did the Appellate Court improperly reverse the trial court’s judgment that under the facts of this case the plaintiff should recover in quantum meruit?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 A.2d 566, 248 Conn. 916, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biller-associates-v-rte-156-realty-co-conn-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack