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

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided February 1, 2017·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

154 A.3d 1007 (Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related