Francoline v. Klatt

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Francoline v. Klatt

603 A.2d 404, 221 Conn. 913, 1992 Conn. LEXIS 77

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided February 14, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 26 Conn. App. 203, is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court’s judgment that the defendant had not proven [914]*914a valid claim under General Statutes §§ 42-110a through 42-110g, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act?”

Decided February 14, 1992 Ann M. Siczewicz, in support of the petition. Robert J. Reeve, in opposition.

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

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 26 Conn. App. 203, is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court’s judgment that the defendant had not proven [914]*914a valid claim under General Statutes §§ 42-110a through 42-110g, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act?”

Decided February 14, 1992 Ann M. Siczewicz, in support of the petition. Robert J. Reeve, in opposition.

Francoline v. Klatt, 603 A.2d 404, 221 Conn. 913, 1992 Conn. LEXIS 77 (Colo. 1992).

Pincite

603 A.2d 404 (Francoline v. Klatt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related