WALPOLE WOODWORKERS, INC. v. Manning

Supreme Court of Connecticut

WALPOLE WOODWORKERS, INC. v. Manning

17 A.3d 476, 300 Conn. 940, 2011 Conn. LEXIS 159

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided April 20, 2011·No. SC 18778·Published

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 126 Conn. App. 94 (AC 31447), is granted, limited to the following issue:

*941 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18778. David L. Gussak, in support of the petition. Decided April 20, 2011

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that a contractor who has violated the Home Improvement Act (act), General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 20-429 et seq., may recover the balance due under the contract as the ‘reasonable value’ of its services under the ‘bad faith’ exception of the act?”

EVELEIGH, 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 defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 126 Conn. App. 94 (AC 31447), is granted, limited to the following issue:

*941 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18778. David L. Gussak, in support of the petition. Decided April 20, 2011

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that a contractor who has violated the Home Improvement Act (act), General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 20-429 et seq., may recover the balance due under the contract as the ‘reasonable value’ of its services under the ‘bad faith’ exception of the act?”

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

WALPOLE WOODWORKERS, INC. v. Manning, 17 A.3d 476, 300 Conn. 940, 2011 Conn. LEXIS 159 (Colo. 2011).

Pincite

17 A.3d 476 (WALPOLE WOODWORKERS, INC. v. Manning) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related