Hurley v. Sheet Metal Manufacturing Co.

572 A.2d 390, 21 Conn. App. 805, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 75
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided February 21, 1990·No. 8140·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have fully considered the plaintiff’s claims of error. Our role in reviewing the decision of the trial court on a prejudgment remedy motion is very circumscribed. Babiarz v. Hartford Special, Inc., 2 Conn. App. 388, 393, 480 A.2d 561 (1984). Unless there is clear error, the court’s factual and legal determinations must stand. Id., 394. The court in this case determined that the plaintiff did not establish probable cause as to liability based on negligence and, impliedly, that the lease provision relied on by the plaintiff did not constitute a third party beneficiary contract in favor of the plaintiff based on liability without fault. We cannot say that the court committed clear error in these determinations.

There is no error.

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

Hurley v. Sheet Metal Manufacturing Co., 572 A.2d 390, 21 Conn. App. 805, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 75 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

572 A.2d 390 (Hurley v. Sheet Metal Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sweet v. Sumnerbrook Mill Development Corp.
572 A.2d 385 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1990)