Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Conn. App. 324

Haddad v. Francis

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided January 26, 1988

Connecticut Appellate Court · decided 1988-01-26

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1998

2 district · 6 state decisions

Relies on Schapansky v. Department of Transportation · Faith Center, Inc. v. City of Hartford · Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-01-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The defendant tenant is appealing the judgment of immediate possession rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff landlord.

¶2The sole question before us is whether the trial court erred in finding that the defendant’s failure to pay *325any increases in real estate taxes constituted wilfull or gross negligence.

¶3The trial court filed a complete and legally sound memorandum of decision which incorporated the facts found and drew legal conclusions in conformity with applicable law. The trial court’s decision so completely articulates the issues involved and so adequately explains the legal basis for its conclusions that it may be referred to for a detailed discussion of the facts and applicable law. See Faith Center, Inc. v. Hartford, 192 Conn. 434, 436, 472 A.2d 16, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1018, 105 S. Ct. 432, 83 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1984); Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 192 Conn. 252, 253, 470 A.2d 1216 (1984); Cantor v. Department of Income Maintenance, 12 Conn. App. 435, 438, 531 A.2d 606 (1987).

¶4Accordingly, the trial court’s memorandum of decision reported in Haddad v. Francis, 40 Conn. Sup. 567, 537 A.2d 174 (1986), should be referred to for a detailed discussion of the facts and legal conclusions in the case.

¶5There is no error.

/13/connapp/324 · .json · Public domain