Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Citation
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-09-11
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
Full Text
820 charsThe following additional facts are relevant to our discussion of this issue. At trial, the defendant argued that it could not be held liable for actions taken by Murray on behalf of Saldana. In advancing this argument, the defendant conceded repeatedly that Murray was, at all relevant times, acting on its behalf. The defendant’s argument also reflects its assumption that Murray was at all relevant times acting as an agent of Saldana. Presumably in reliance on those representations plainly evident from the defendant’s argument and theory of defense, the court noted in its memorandum of decision that the defendant acted at all relevant times as Saldana’s agent. At no time after the trial did the defendant attempt to retract its prior statements or ask the court to determine in the first instance whether an *730