Skip to main content

O'Hara v. State

Citations

  • 218 Conn. 628
  • 590 A.2d 948
  • 1991 Conn. LEXIS 237

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that frustration of purpose did not apply then the proposed plans for relocation change but “the agreement explicitly acknowledged the possibility that the plans for relocation could be altered”
  • impossibility doctrine did not excuse duty to convey real property, despite nonoccurrence of road- way relocation project that was condition to convey- ance, because contract anticipated that situation by requiring partial conveyance if condition did not occur

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hull

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

30 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced 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.