From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchman

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 1, 2017
154 A.3d 1007 (Conn. 2017)

Opinion

02-01-2017

MEADOWBROOK CENTER, INC. v. Robert BUCHMAN

Daniel J. Klau, in support of the petition. Juri E. Taalman, in opposition.


Daniel J. Klau, in support of the petition.

Juri E. Taalman, in opposition.

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 169 Conn. App. 527, 151 A.3d 404 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court properly rule that the time limitation contained in the rules of practice governing motions for attorney's fees in Practice Book § 11–21 is directory and not mandatory?"

PALMER, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.


Summaries of

Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchman

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 1, 2017
154 A.3d 1007 (Conn. 2017)
Case details for

Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchman

Case Details

Full title:MEADOWBROOK CENTER, INC. v. Robert BUCHMAN

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Feb 1, 2017

Citations

154 A.3d 1007 (Conn. 2017)
324 Conn. 918

Citing Cases

Meadowbrook Ctr., Inc. v. Buchman

We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal, limited to the following issue: "Did the…