Washington Trust Co. v. Smith

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Washington Trust Co. v. Smith

682 A.2d 1014, 239 Conn. 919, 1996 Conn. LEXIS 388

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided September 18, 1996·No. SC 15529·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The petition by the proposed defendant Spicer Plus, Inc., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 42 Conn. App. 330 (AC 13416), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that movants Spicer Plus, Inc., and John Holstein were not entitled to intervene because (1) they had not met their [920]*920burden of proving their interests in the property, and (2) they had not filed their motion to intervene in a timely manner?”

Decided September 18, 1996 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15529. William F. Gallagher and Cynthia C. Bott, in support of the petition. Francis J. Pavetti, in opposition.

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

The petition by the proposed defendant Spicer Plus, Inc., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 42 Conn. App. 330 (AC 13416), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that movants Spicer Plus, Inc., and John Holstein were not entitled to intervene because (1) they had not met their [920]*920burden of proving their interests in the property, and (2) they had not filed their motion to intervene in a timely manner?”

Decided September 18, 1996 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15529. William F. Gallagher and Cynthia C. Bott, in support of the petition. Francis J. Pavetti, in opposition.

Washington Trust Co. v. Smith, 682 A.2d 1014, 239 Conn. 919, 1996 Conn. LEXIS 388 (Colo. 1996).

Pincite

682 A.2d 1014 (Washington Trust Co. v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related