Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-929-605-4013

Matto v. Dan Beard, Inc.

Document Cited authorities 1 Cited in 13 Precedent Map Related
Decision Date04 October 1988
Citation550 A.2d 1082,209 Conn. 812
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesRalph J. MATTO, Executor (ESTATE OF Betty J. MATTO) v. DAN BEARD, INC.

Page 1082

550 A.2d 1082

209 Conn. 812

Ralph J. MATTO, Executor (ESTATE OF Betty J. MATTO) v.DAN BEARD, INC.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Decided Oct. 4, 1988.

Edward Maum Sheehy, Bridgeport, in support of the petition.

The defendants' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 15 Conn.App. 458, 546 A.2d 854, is denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Public Storage, Inc. v. Eliot Street Ltd. Partnership, 7804
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 1989
    ...or are insufficient to support that conclusion." Matto v. Dan Beard, Inc., 15 Conn.App. 458, 474, 546 A.2d 854, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 812, 550 A.2d 1082 (1988); see also Russo v. Terek, 7 Conn.App. 252, 257, 508 A.2d 788 (1986). Here, the trial court found, on the basis of the evidence be......
  • Durkin Village Plainville v. Cunningham
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • September 26, 2006
    ...persons." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Matto v. Dan Beard, Inc., 15 Conn.App. 458, 479, 546 A.2d 854, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 812, 550 A.2d 1082 (1988). "[T]he possession [however] must be connected and continuous ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 479-80, 546 A.2d The......
  • Caminis v. Troy
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • February 24, 2011
    ...this determination, the trial court relied solely on Matto v. Dan Beard, Inc., 15 Conn. App. 458, 546 A.2d 854, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 812, 550 A.2d 1082 (1988), which it concluded stood for the principle that ''defendant[s] who had exercised rights beyond thosegranted in a permit issued b......
  • Mandes v. Godiksen, (AC 18532)
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 2000
    ...the high and low-water marks is in the state. Matto v. Dan Beard, Inc., 15 Conn. App. 458, 476, 546 A.2d 854, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 812, 550 A.2d 1082 (1988). The owner of the upland adjoining the high-water mark has the exclusive privilege of wharfing out, erecting piers, the right of ac......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT