Maritime Ventures v. Norwalk

23 Citing cases

  1. Baltimore v. Neighborhood Rentals

    170 Md. App. 671 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Once again, we note that appellees' property, in contrast to the property at issue in Aposporos, was always part of the Hamilton Plan. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Connecticut in a later decision, Maritime Ventures, LLC v. City of Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 894 A.2d 946 (2006), limited the scope of Aposporos, declaring that "no renewed finding of blight is required for approval of a modification to a redevelopment plan unless the 'amended' plan resulting from such modification is in fact not merely an amended plan, but a new plan." Id. at 822, 894 A.2d 946. There is no such contention before us.

  2. Vegliante v. East Haven

    2007 Ct. Sup. 4146 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807-08, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). "The allegations and proof are conditions precedent to the granting of an injunction."

  3. Strauch v. Comput. Scis. Corp.

    Civil No. 3:14-CV-956 (JBA) (D. Conn. Nov. 9, 2018)   Cited 4 times

    But as Defendant correctly notes, under Connecticut law "[a] party seeking injunctive relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law." Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiffs have not shown what irreparable harm they will suffer from receiving only damages in this case, or explained why that legal remedy is inadequate for them.

  4. Comm'r of Corr. v. Coleman

    303 Conn. 800 (Conn. 2012)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that DOC officials maintained a duty under section 18-7 to "provide for the relief of any sick or infirm prisoner"—in that case, a prisoner at the McDougall-Walker institution

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807–808, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). “How a court balances the equities is discretionary but if, in balancing those equities, a trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary.”

  5. Harpaz v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.

    286 Conn. 102 (Conn. 2008)   Cited 40 times
    In Harpaz v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 286 Conn. 102, 110–11, 942 A.2d 396 (2008), our Supreme Court examined the preclusion scheme set forth in § 31–294c (b): “The first two sentences of § 31–294c (b) address the procedure that an employer must follow if it wants to contest liability to pay compensation.... The statute prescribes therein that, within twenty-eight days of receiving a notice of claim, the employer must file a notice stating that it contests the claimant's right to compensation and setting forth the specific ground on which compensation is contested.

    Although the parties rely on either the inclusion or omission of the phrase "extent of his disability" in different parts of the statute, it is useful first to view these parts within their context of the statute as a whole. See Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 826-27, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). The first two sentences of § 31-294c (b) address the procedure that an employer must follow if it wants to contest "liability to pay compensation. . . ."

  6. Renaissance Management Co. v. Connecticut Housing Fin. Auth

    281 Conn. 227 (Conn. 2007)   Cited 151 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a successful claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires a showing that the defendant acted in bad faith to "impede[] the plaintiff's right to receive benefits that he or she reasonably expected to receive under the contract"

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807-808, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). The plaintiffs claim that the trial court misinterpreted § 8-253a (1) in denying the requested injunctive relief. Therefore, our inquiry focuses on whether the trial court's decision was based on an erroneous statement of the law.

  7. Town of Wethersfield v. PR Arrow, LLC

    187 Conn. App. 604 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 15 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk , 277 Conn. 800, 807, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). "In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court's ruling.... Reversal is required only [when] an abuse of discretion is manifest or [when] injustice appears to have been done."

  8. Driska v. Pierce

    955 A.2d 1235 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Host America Corp. v. Ramsey, 107 Conn. App. 849, 854, 947 A.2d 957 (2008); see also Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807-808, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). The defendants argue that the court lacked the authority to "prohibit private property owners from allowing nonfamily members to use their land for ATV riding or from prohibiting private property owners from advertising that their property is available for such use."

  9. Connecticut Commercial Lenders, LLC v. Teague

    105 Conn. App. 806 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that defendants waived right to claim that appeal should be dismissed as untimely due to failure to file timely motion to dismiss as required by Practice Book § 66-8

    When the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary. Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). The plaintiff alternatively argues that the court abused its discretion in denying its motion to open the April 11, 2006 judgment.

  10. A.G. Morgan Wealth Management, LLC v. Maccio Financial

    No. HHBCV166034158S (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 3, 2018)

    General Statutes § 52-471 provides in relevant part: "(a) Any judge of any court of equitable jurisdiction may, on motion, grant and enforce a writ of injunction ... in any action for equitable relief when the relief is properly demandable ..." "A party seeking injunctive relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law ... A prayer for injunctive relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the court ..." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Maritime Ventures, LLC v. Norwalk, 277 Conn. 800, 807, 894 A.2d 946 (2006). "The extraordinary nature of injunctive relief requires that the harm complained of is occurring or will occur if the injunction is not granted.