Downes-Patterson Corp. v. First National Supermarkets, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Downes-Patterson Corp. v. First National Supermarkets, Inc.

782 A.2d 1242, 258 Conn. 917, 2001 Conn. LEXIS 423

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided September 20, 2001·No. SC 16585·Published

Opinion

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 64 Conn. App. 417 (AC 20506), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Was the Appellate Court correct in determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the jury’s verdict on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act count on the basis that the defendant was under no duty to release the restrictive covenant?

“2. Was the Appellate Court correct in determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the jury’s verdict on the tortious interference [918] count on the basis that the defendant was under no duty to release the restrictive covenant?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16585. Robert M. Shields, Jr., Wesley W. Horton and Michael J. Quinn, in support of the petition. Everett E. Newton, in opposition. Decided September 20, 2001

“3. Did the Appellate Court usurp the jury’s fact-finding function by ignoring evidence sufficient to support the jury’s fact-finding function?”

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, 64 Conn. App. 417 (AC 20506), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Was the Appellate Court correct in determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the jury’s verdict on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act count on the basis that the defendant was under no duty to release the restrictive covenant?

“2. Was the Appellate Court correct in determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the jury’s verdict on the tortious interference [918] count on the basis that the defendant was under no duty to release the restrictive covenant?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16585. Robert M. Shields, Jr., Wesley W. Horton and Michael J. Quinn, in support of the petition. Everett E. Newton, in opposition. Decided September 20, 2001

“3. Did the Appellate Court usurp the jury’s fact-finding function by ignoring evidence sufficient to support the jury’s fact-finding function?”

Downes-Patterson Corp. v. First National Supermarkets, Inc., 782 A.2d 1242, 258 Conn. 917, 2001 Conn. LEXIS 423 (Colo. 2001).

Pincite

782 A.2d 1242 (Downes-Patterson Corp. v. First National Supermarkets, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related