Title: Johnson v. de Toledo
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC16475
State: Connecticut
Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court
Date: December 18, 2001

******************************************************
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 Connecti-
cut 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 Con-
necticut 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 repro-
duced and distributed without the express written per-
mission
of
the
Commission
on
Official
Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
SCOTT JOHNSON v. VICTORIA DE TOLEDO ET AL.
(SC 16475)
Sullivan, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Zarella, Js.
Argued October 24—officially released December 18, 2001
Counsel
Anthony M. Modugno, with whom, on the brief, was
Frank Modugno, for the appellant (plaintiff).
John M. Gasidlo, for the appellees (named defendant
et al.).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Scott Johnson doing
business as Viking Painting, appeals, following our grant
of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate
Court, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment grant-
ing the application of the defendant homeowners, Victo-
ria de Toledo and Stewart M. Casper, to discharge the
mechanic’s lien filed by the plaintiff against their prop-
erty. Johnson v. de Toledo, 61 Conn. App. 156, 763 A.2d
28 (2000). We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certifi-
cation to appeal limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the
Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court
had used the proper standard of proof in discharging
the plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien?’’ Johnson v. de Toledo,
255 Conn. 938, 767 A.2d 1212 (2001).
After examining the entire record on appeal and con-
sidering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties,
we have determined that the appeal in this case should
be dismissed on the ground that certification was
improvidently granted.
The appeal is dismissed.