Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchman

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchman

154 A.3d 1007, 324 Conn. 918, 2017 Conn. LEXIS 53

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedFebruary 1, 2017

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 A.3d 1007 (Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchman, 154 A.3d 1007, 324 Conn. 918, 2017 Conn. LEXIS 53 (Colo. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 169 Conn. App. 527, 151 A.3d 404 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court properly rule that the time limitation contained in the rules of practice governing motions for attorney's fees in Practice Book § 11-21 is directory and not mandatory?"

PALMER, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

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, 169 Conn. App. 527, 151 A.3d 404 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court properly rule that the time limitation contained in the rules of practice governing motions for attorney's fees in Practice Book § 11-21 is directory and not mandatory?"

PALMER, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.3d 1007, 324 Conn. 918, 2017 Conn. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meadowbrook-ctr-inc-v-buchman-conn-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack