Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** DOROTHY WOOD v. LAILA AMER ET AL. (SC 16199)
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Sullivan and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued May 25--officially released July 4, 2000 Counsel

Frederic S. Ury, with whom, on the brief, was Deborah M. Garskof, for the appellant (named defendant). Stanley A. Twardy, Jr., with whom, on the brief, were Deborah S. Gordon and Keith P. Carroll, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. In this certified appeal, the plaintiff, Dorothy Wood, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing a judgment of the trial court. The trial court's judgment denied the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction prohibiting the named defendant, Laila Amer, from building a home on a lot located across the street from the plaintiff's property in Greenwich. The plaintiff had sought enforcement of certain restrictions contained in the named defendant's chain of title. The trial court rendered judgment for the named defendant on the basis of the statute of limitations set forth

in General Statutes

Download Wood v. Amer.pdf

Connecticut Law