Loeb v. Al-Mor Corp.
Lawrence Loeb v. Al-Mor Corporation
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
In this action to quiet title, the appeal challenges the trial court’s interpretation of the deeds and maps on which the plaintiffs, Lawrence Loeb and Allen Loeb, relied to establish their title against the defendant, Al-Mor Corporation. The plaintiffs instituted a complaint in two counts against the defendant, seeking relief on alternate theories of record title and adverse possession. The trial court, after a hearing, rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant on both counts. The plaintiffs appealed from that judgment to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).
Our examination of the record on this appeal, and the briefs and arguments of the parties, persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. In the circumstances of this case, the interpretation of a stipulation of the parties and of the various contested deeds and maps constituted factual issues properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision filed by the trial court. Loeb v. Al-Mor Corporation, 42 Conn. Sup. 279 , 615 A.2d 182 (1991). Because that memorandum of decision fully states and meets the arguments raised in the present appeal, we adopt the trial court’s well reasoned decision as a correct statement of the facts and the applicable law on the contested issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained. See Einbinder v. Board of Tax Review, 217 Conn. 240, 242 , 584 A.2d 1188 (1991); Fogg v. Wakelee, 196 Conn. 287, 288 , 492 A.2d 511 (1985).
The judgment is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Refuse Gardens, Inc.
- Daw's Critical Care Registry, Inc. v. Department of Labor
- Van Dyck Printing Co. v. DiNicola
- Forge Square Associates Limited Partnership v. Construction Services of Bristol, Inc.
- Remington Investments, Inc. v. National Properties, Inc.
- Shulansky v. Rodriguez
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.