Hoke Inc. v. Circuits, Inc., 10507
Decision Date | 03 March 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 10507,10507 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | HOKE INCORPORATED v. CIRCUITS, INC. |
Leny K. Wallen-Friedman, with whom was Eric Lukingbeal, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Katharine Goodbody, with whom, on the brief, were Mark Mininberg, New Haven and Julie Harrison, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant).
Before DUPONT, C.J., and EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL and FREEDMAN, JJ.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the denial of its application for a prejudgment remedy. The plaintiff seeks an order from the trial court directing the issuance of a prejudgment attachment, in the amount of $300,000, against certain real property owned by the defendant.
In determining whether to grant an application for a prejudgment remedy, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-278d, 1 (Citations omitted.) Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Schlesinger, 220 Conn. 152, 156, 595 A.2d 872 (1991). On appeal, our review is limited to " 'whether the determination of the trial court constituted clear error.' " Id., at 157, 595 A.2d 872.
In denying the plaintiff's application, the trial court found that it did not have "enough here to enter a $300,000 judgment," even though it accepted all of the testimony presented by the plaintiff. The trial court, therefore, held the plaintiff to a higher standard than is required by General Statutes § 52-278d.
The denial of the application is reversed and the case is remanded for a new hearing.
1 General Statutes § 52-278d(a) provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Giordano v. Giordano
...to a standard at the predeprivation hearing higher than that to which they will be held at trial. See Hoke, Inc. v. Circuits, Inc., 26 Conn.App. 804, 805, 602 A.2d 1075 (1992). Because we have concluded that the amount of a prejudgment remedy awarded for emotional distress is not necessaril......
-
Spencer v. Star Steel Structures, Inc., No. CV 01 0064902 (CT 7/14/2005)
...in a trial on the merits, considering both legal and factual issues. General Statutes §52-278d(a); Hole, Inc. v. Circuits, Inc., 26 Conn.App. 804, 805, 602 A.2d 1075 (1992). The Connecticut Supreme Court has established that the concern is "[w]hether and to what extent the plaintiff is enti......
-
Alzheimer's Resource Center of Connecticut, Inc. v. Carlstrom, No. CV 04 4002045 S (CT 5/23/2005)
...on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims; Fischel v. TKPK, Ltd., 34 Conn.App. 22, 24, 640 A.2d 125 (1994); Hoke, Inc. v. Circuits, Inc., 26 Conn.App. 804, 805, 602 A.2d 1075 (1995); but rather concerns only whether and to what extent the plaintiff is entitled to have property of a defendant ......
-
Bosco v. Arrowhead by the Lake, Inc.
...on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims; Fischel v. TKPK, Ltd., 34 Conn. App. 22, 24, 640 A.2d 125 (1994); Hoke, Inc. v. Circuits, Inc., 26 Conn. App. 804, 805, 602 A.2d 1075 (1995); but rather concerns only whether and to what extent the plaintiff is entitled to have property of a defendan......