Krasko v. Konkos
Citations
- 224 Conn. App. 589
Syllabus
The plaintiffs, owners of certain real property in Easton that is benefitted by a right-of-way easement over the defendants' neighboring property, sought, inter alia, a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to consent to the removal of a utility pole that provided electrical services to the defendants' property and obstructed the easement and to upgrade the electrical connection between the defendants' house and a new utility pole that had been erected on the plaintiffs' property so that the connection complied with the building code then in effect. Prior to the commencement of trial, the attorneys for the parties attended a pretrial conference before the trial court. Thereafter, pursuant to Audubon Park- ing Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc. (225 Conn. 804), the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement that they claimed the parties had entered into at the pretrial conference. In their motion, the plaintiffs asserted that the parties had discussed and orally agreed on the location of an underground conduit for the defen- dants' new electrical service at the pretrial conference and that, subse- quently, the defendants refused to allow the plaintiffs to perform the work that was agreed on or to implement the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs attached an exhibit to their motion, which they drafted after the pretrial conference to outline the terms of the parties' alleged agreement. The defendants objected to the plaintiffs' motion, asserting that, although the parties had attempted to reach an agreement at the pretrial conference, they never did so, as they failed to reach a consensus regarding the location and scope of the expected work and the length of time it would take. Following a remote status conference, the trial court went on the record to hear arguments from the parties' counsel and then incorporated the additional terms that were discussed by the defendants' counsel into the settlement agreement as it was ou
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting this inquiry “does not require that each of the factors set forth be resolved in favor of the Government” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- discussing Wong Sun and Brown in the context of this factor
- moments passed between a warrantless entry into the defendant’s home and his striking up an incriminating conversation with a government informant
- “[A]n intervening ‘act of free will [may] purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.’” (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486 (1963))
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Elgo; Moll; Suarez
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.