Wright Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Dowling

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Wright Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Dowling

242 Conn. 842

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJuly 29, 1997

DocketSC 15741

StatusPublished

This text of 242 Conn. 842 (Wright Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Dowling) 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

Wright Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Dowling, 242 Conn. 842 (Colo. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 918 (AC 16135), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s decision overruling the attorney trial referee’s conclusion that the agreement between the plaintiff and [843]*843the defendants complied with the Home Improvement Act, General Statutes § 20-429 (a) (6); if so, did the Appellate Court also properly affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover under its claim of unjust enrichment?

Decided July 29, 1997 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15741. Alan R. Spirer, in support of the petition. Christopher C. Vaugh, in opposition.

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s decision overruling the attorney trial referee’s conclusion that the defendants’ bad faith precluded their invocation of the Home Improvement Act as a basis for repudiating the contract?”

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

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 918 (AC 16135), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s decision overruling the attorney trial referee’s conclusion that the agreement between the plaintiff and [843]*843the defendants complied with the Home Improvement Act, General Statutes § 20-429 (a) (6); if so, did the Appellate Court also properly affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover under its claim of unjust enrichment?

Decided July 29, 1997 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15741. Alan R. Spirer, in support of the petition. Christopher C. Vaugh, in opposition.

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s decision overruling the attorney trial referee’s conclusion that the defendants’ bad faith precluded their invocation of the Home Improvement Act as a basis for repudiating the contract?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 Conn. 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-bros-builders-inc-v-dowling-conn-1997.