Driessens v. Driessens

Connecticut Appellate Court

Driessens v. Driessens

490 A.2d 1032, 3 Conn. App. 677, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 958

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMay 7, 1985

Docket2904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 490 A.2d 1032 (Driessens v. Driessens) 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

Driessens v. Driessens, 490 A.2d 1032, 3 Conn. App. 677, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 958 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff filed this appeal following a trial in which the jury found against the plaintiff on a claim of breach of contract. The original suit included claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract against both Heloise Driessens and Warren Driessens as defendants. The trial court ruled for the defendant Warren Driessens on motions for summary judgment, and those rulings are not a subject of this appeal. The trial court, finding that the action had not been commenced within the three year [678]*678statute of limitations, also ruled in favor of the defendant Heloise Driessens on the fraud count as a matter of law.

After a careful study of the briefs and the record, and after a careful analysis of those issues which we consider properly before this court, we conclude that there is no merit to the plaintiffs claims.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff filed this appeal following a trial in which the jury found against the plaintiff on a claim of breach of contract. The original suit included claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract against both Heloise Driessens and Warren Driessens as defendants. The trial court ruled for the defendant Warren Driessens on motions for summary judgment, and those rulings are not a subject of this appeal. The trial court, finding that the action had not been commenced within the three year [678]*678statute of limitations, also ruled in favor of the defendant Heloise Driessens on the fraud count as a matter of law.

After a careful study of the briefs and the record, and after a careful analysis of those issues which we consider properly before this court, we conclude that there is no merit to the plaintiffs claims.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 A.2d 1032, 3 Conn. App. 677, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driessens-v-driessens-connappct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack