Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Citation
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Parent Document
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1996-01-30
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
- Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 40 Conn. App. 219 (1996)
Full Text
457 charsThe plaintiffs next argue that the trial court improperly refused to allow them to inquire of Audrey Gaines, the program coordinator for the lead poisoning prevention project, whether any similar complaints regarding the presence of lead paint had ever been made in any other buildings owned by the defendants. The defendants argue in response that the trial court correctly excluded the evidence as irrelevant and prejudicial. We agree with the defendants.