Washington Trust Co. v. Smith

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Washington Trust Co. v. Smith

239 Conn. 919

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedSeptember 18, 1996

DocketSC 15527

StatusPublished

This text of 239 Conn. 919 (Washington Trust Co. v. Smith) 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

Washington Trust Co. v. Smith, 239 Conn. 919 (Colo. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Thepetitionby the proposed defendant JohnHoIstein, trustee of City Discount Oil Nominee Trust, 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 burden of proving their interests in the property, and (2) they had not filed their motion to intervene in a timely manner?”

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

Thepetitionby the proposed defendant JohnHoIstein, trustee of City Discount Oil Nominee Trust, 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 burden of proving their interests in the property, and (2) they had not filed their motion to intervene in a timely manner?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 Conn. 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-trust-co-v-smith-conn-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack