Home/Connecticut Superior Court/Caruso v. Caruso, No. Cv 90-0442212s (Feb. 7, 1991)

Caruso v. Caruso, No. Cv 90-0442212s (Feb. 7, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1082
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedFebruary 7, 1991
DocketNo. CV 90-0442212S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1082 (Caruso v. Caruso, No. Cv 90-0442212s (Feb. 7, 1991)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Caruso v. Caruso, No. Cv 90-0442212s (Feb. 7, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1082 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL The plaintiff, who is the father of the deceased, is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of General Statutes sec. 45a-186 (formerly sec. 45-288). He is not an heir of the decedent nor is he entitled to share in the estate of the decedent. General Statutes sec. 45a-303 (c) (formerly sec.45-195 (c)). In order to establish aggrievement, the interest adversely affected must be direct. Urrata v. Izzillo, 1 Conn. App. 17. Also see Zempsky's Appeal from Probate, 6 Conn. App. 521.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss this probate appeal is granted.

FRANCES ALLEN SENIOR JUDGE

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

Related

Urrata v. Izzillo
467 A.2d 943 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1983)
Zempsky's Appeal from Probate
506 A.2d 1050 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 1082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruso-v-caruso-no-cv-90-0442212s-feb-7-1991-connsuperct-1991.