Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey

80 Conn. 426 (Conn. 1908)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey

5 Citing cases

  1. Loda v. H. K. Sargeant & Associates, Inc.

    188 Conn. 69 (Conn. 1982)   Cited 54 times

    It is well settled that this statute allows the court to award a stakeholder reasonable attorney's fees and expenses. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 431, 68 A. 993 (1908). The trial court has a wide discretion in making its awards, subject to review only for an abuse of that discretion.

  2. Koizim v. Koizim

    181 Conn. 492 (Conn. 1980)   Cited 137 times
    Upholding property and alimony awards when assets distributed to plaintiff represented “52 percent of the total assets as calculated by the plaintiff and 46 percent of the total assets as calculated by the defendant,” and noting that “[c]alculated another way, the value of assets” would represent “39 percent of family wealth”

    The defendant's application, supported by and affidavit, alleged that the plaintiff had arranged to borrow $600,000 from the Beatrice Koizim Trust, assigning as collateral his interest in S K Associates. This action directly contravened the court's directive, set out in its memorandum of decision, that the plaintiff's interest in these assets not be encumbered or divested. Under these circumstances we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in issuing a temporary restraining order. See General Statutes 52-473; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 431, 68 A. 993 (1908). With respect to the ex parte contact, which consisted of a telephone conversation in which permission was sought to submit an application for the restraining order discussed above, it was entirely proper.

  3. Vitale v. Gargiulo

    131 A.2d 830 (Conn. 1957)   Cited 23 times

    The construction which we place upon the finding is fortified by the memorandum of decision, which may be consulted in the interpretation of ambiguous or equivocal language in a finding. Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. (2d Ed.) 152;. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 433, 68 A. 993; Rowell v. Stamford Street Ry. Co., 64 Conn. 376, 380, 30 A. 131. In its memorandum, the court stated that "the plaintiff acting by . . . her agent, rescinded the sale and notified the defendants within a reasonable time and offered to return the truck.

  4. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Bongiorno Family, LLC

    FSTCV126013831S (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 16, 2018)

    This statute has allowed the stakeholder to be awarded counsel fees and expenses from the funds on deposit. Chase v. Benedict, 72 Conn. 322, 328 (1899); Union Trust Company v. Stamford Trust Company, 72 Conn. 86, 93, 96 (1899); Phoenix Insurance Company v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 431 (1908). Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC has made the claim for attorneys fees and costs in both the May 1, 2012 Bill of Interpleader (# 100.31) and in its amended Statement of Claim dated July 26, 2017 (# 206.00).

  5. Rogin Nassau, LLC v. Quinn

    No. HHDCV166064925S (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 21, 2017)

    It is well settled that this statute allows the court to award a stakeholder reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 431, 68 A. 993 (1908). The trial court has a wide discretion in making its awards, subject to review only for an abuse of that discretion.