green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.0 score
“t is incumbent on a plaintiff to allege some ct page 14606 recognizable cause of action in his complaint. if he fails to do so, it is not the burden of the defendant to attempt to correct the deficiency, either by motion, or otherwise.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Larobina v. McDonald
See also Pane v. Danbury, 267 Conn. 669 , 674 n.7, 841 A.2d 684 (2004) (allowing use of motion for summary judgment to challenge legal sufficiency of complaint when plaintiff did not raise objection in trial court); Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17 , 32 n.17, 699 A.2d 964 (1997) (treating motion for summary judgment as motion to strike); Hossan v. Hudiakoff, 178 Conn. 381 , 382 n.l, 423 A.2d 108 (1979) (court declined to consider whether use of motion for summary judgment instead of motion to strike was procedurally proper when motion to strike properly would have been granted);…
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lintz v. Avis-Vieira, No. Cv98 0162976 S (Dec. 4, 1998)
t is incumbent on a plaintiff to allege some ct page 14606 recognizable cause of action in his complaint. if he fails to do so, it is not the burden of the defendant to attempt to correct the deficiency, either by motion, or otherwise.
discussed
Cited "see"
Duffy v. Town of Wallingford
See Burke v. Avitable, 32 Conn. App. 765, 772 , 630 A.2d 624 (‘the office of a motion for summary judgment is not to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, but is to test the presence of contested factual issues’), cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993); cf. Boucher Agency, Inc. *114 v. Zimmer, 160 Conn. 404, 408-409 , 279 A.2d 540 (1971) (suggesting that motion for summary judgment may be used to test sufficiency of cause of action).” Pane v. Danbury, 267 Conn. 669 , 674 n.7, 841 A.2d 684 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pane v. City of Danbury
See Burke v. Avitabile, 32 Conn. App. 765, 772 , 630 A.2d 624 (“[t]he office of a motion for summary judgment is not to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, but is to test the presence of contested factual issues”), cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993); cf. Boucher Agency, Inc. v. Zimmer, 160 Conn. 404, 408-409 , 279 A.2d 540 (1971) (suggesting that motion for summary judgment may be used to test sufficiency of cause of action).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gould v. Mellick & Sexton
Some trial courts appear inclined to grant motions for summary judgment apparently because the parties agree to resolve their differences by means of a motion for summary judgment; see Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17 , 32 n.17, 699 A.2d 964 (1997); although the rules of practice do not provide for it and the practice has not received explicit approval from this court; see Burke v. Avitabile, 32 Conn. App. 765 , 630 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993); 12 or our Supreme Court.
discussed
Cited "see"
Palmieri v. Lee, No. 405641 (Nov. 24, 1999)
See Boucher Agency, Inc. v. Zimmer , 160 Conn. 404 , 409 , 279 A.2d 540 (1971). `Although the Appellate Court in Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 , 772 n. 9, 630 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993), discountenanced the filing of a motion for summary judgment to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint and characterized language in Boucher to the contrary as `anomalous,' a more recent appellate opinion, by a panel which included two of the three judges who issued Burke, has restated that a motion for summary judgment is a proper procedural vehicle to test t…
discussed
Cited "see"
Dorvilus v. Donovan, No. Cv97 0157928 (May 26, 1999)
See Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 , 630 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993) (finding that "[t]he office of a motion for summary judgment is not to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint, but is to test for the presence of contested factual issues").
discussed
Cited "see"
Orta v. Rivera, No. 408173 (Nov. 10, 1998)
See Boucher Agency, Inc. v. Zimmer , 160 Conn. 404 , 409 , 279 A.2d 540 (1971). 1 "Although the Appellate Court in Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 , 772 n. 9, 630 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993), discountenanced the filing of a motion for summary judgment to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint and characterized language in Boucher to the contrary as `anomalous,' CT Page 12936 a more recent appellate opinion, by a panel which included two of the three judges who issued Burke , has restated that a motion for summary judgment is a proper procedural …
cited
Cited "see"
Dutch Point Credit Union, Inc. v. Caron Auto Works, Inc.
See Orsi v. Senatore, 31 Conn. App. 400 , 427 n.19, 626 A.2d 750 , cert. granted, 228 Conn. 908 , 635 A.2d 1228 (1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles Burke
v.
Louis S. Avitabile
v.
Louis S. Avitabile
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 4, 1993.
Meryl Anne Spat, in support of the petition., Charles Burke, pro se, in opposition.
Published
Citer courts: Connecticut Superior Court (1)
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 32 Conn. App. 765 (AC 11723), is denied.