Moasser v. Becker
| Decision Date | 18 September 2003 |
| Citation | 266 Conn. 910,832 A.2d 70 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | FARHAD MOASSER v. JAMES A. BECKER ET AL. |
Brenden P. Leydon, in support of the petition.
Philip M. French, in opposition.
The petition by the defendant Judith Becker for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 78 Conn. App. 305 (AC 22819), is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
19 cases
-
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Casacola
... ... v. Hintlian, 241 Conn. 269, 275, 696 A.2d 315 (1997); ... see also Moasser v. Becker, 78 Conn.App. 305, 324, ... 828 A.2d 116, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 910, 832 A.2d 70 ... (2003); Morgera v. Chiappardi, 74 ... ...
-
Monetary Funding Group, Inc. v. Pluchino
...v. Hintlian, 241 Conn. 269, 275, 696 A.2d 315 (1997); Moasser v. Becker, 78 Conn.App. 305, 324, 828 A.2d 116, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 910, 832 A.2d 70 (2003). Foreclosure may be withheld by the court on the grounds of equitable considerations and principles. LaSalle National Bank v. Freshfi......
-
Russo Roofing, Inc. v. Rottman
...justice is done." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Moasser v. Becker, 78 Conn.App. 305, 324, 828 A.2d 116, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 910, 832 A.2d 70 (2003). On remand, therefore, the court should take into account the attorney's fees that it awards the plaintiff under § 42-150aa in fashio......
-
JP Morgan Chase Bank, National v. Davis
...v. Hintlian, 241 Conn. 269, 275, 696 A.2d 315 (1997); Moasser v. Becker, 78 Conn.App. 305, 324, 828 A.2d 116, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 910, 832 A.2d 70 (2003). Foreclosure may be withheld by the court on the grounds equitable considerations and principles. LaSalle National Bank v. Freshfield......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
The Standard for Determining "unfair Acts or Practices" Under State Unfair Trade Practices Acts
...Electric Company, Inc. v. Salce Contracting Associates, Inc., 72 Conn. App. 342, 357, 805 A.3d 735,744, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911,832 A.2d 70(2002); Id. (No. AC 21509) Brief for Defendant-Appellee at 16-27. This article was not the first to note that the Connecticut courts have continued ......