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
513 charsThe defendant also maintains that the court improperly applied a per se rule that “[i]t is unlawful to ‘transfer money to the landlord before the time for proper notification [pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-21 (d)] has expired’ . . . This argument is not well founded, however, because the court’s memorandum of decision plainly reflects that the court based its judgment on the whole of the defendant’s conduct, which, the court concluded, amounted to a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiffs. 7