Hurley v. Sheet Metal Manufacturing Co.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Hurley v. Sheet Metal Manufacturing Co.

572 A.2d 390, 21 Conn. App. 805, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 75

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedFebruary 21, 1990

Docket8140

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 572 A.2d 390 (Hurley v. Sheet Metal Manufacturing Co.) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 A.2d 390, 21 Conn. App. 805, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurley-v-sheet-metal-manufacturing-co-connappct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack