Sullivan v. Nameaug Walk-in Medical Center
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Holloway v. Hotchkiss, No. Cv01-0163147s (Aug. 14, 2001) (Connecticut Superior Court 2001)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal (Conn. App. Ct. 2009)
- Menton v. Gaul, No. 0209-28332 (Dec. 26, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Van Sickle (Conn. App. Ct. 1999)
- Sullo v. Main Stop Automotive, Inc., No. Spnh 9701-49721 B.R. (May 9, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
- Winn Management Co. v. Firment, No. Cvnh 9706-51132 (Oct. 16, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Vansickle, No. Sp97-7835 (Jul. 30, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
- Frankel v. Gomes, No. Cv N.H. 9504-6819 (Jun. 3, 1996) (Connecticut Superior Court 1996)
- State v. Lavecchia (Conn. App. Ct. 2021)
- Elm City Mfg. v. Abacus Moving Transfer, No. Spnh-53760 (Mar. 3, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
- Larsen v. Timothy's Ice Cream Inc., No. Spbr 9505 29502 (Oct. 12, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In this certified appeal, the issue is whether General Statutes § 47a-23 (a)
After reviewing the briefs, the record and the arguments of counsel, we are persuaded that, in the circumstances of this case, we do not have an appropriate opportunity for a searching analysis of the relationship
The appeal is dismissed.
General Statutes § 47a-23 provides in relevant part: “(Formerly Sec. 52-532) notice to quit possession or occupancy of premises, form, delivery, federal termination notice, (a) When the owner or lessor . . . desires to obtain possession or occupancy of any land or building . . . and (1) when a rental agreement or lease of such property, whether in writ
We granted the plaintiffs petition for certification, limited to the following issue: “Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant’s failure to pay rent did not provide a basis for summary process under General Statutes § 47a-23 (a) (1) (E)?” Sullivan v. Nameaug Walk-in Medical Center, P.C., 231 Conn. 923, 648 A.2d 167 (1994).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.