Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
29 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gibson v. Capanogreen2 sentences2002See Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996). 2001See Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Gettesgreen2 sentences2002See Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996). 2001See Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996). | 6 | 6 |
Drahan v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2002See Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996). 2002See Drahan v. Board of Education , 42 Conn. App. 480 , 498 n. 17, 680 A.2d 316 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1000 (1996). | 6 | 6 |
Boucher Agency, Inc. v. Zimmergreen2 sentences1999See 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 1999See 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 | 3 | 3 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2002Although the Appellate Court in Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 n. 9, 630 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993), rejected the use of motions for summary judgment to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint and characterized language in Boucher as "anomalous," a more recent appellate opinion has stated that a motion for summary judgment is a proper procedural vehicle to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. 2001Although the Appellate Court in Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 n. 9, 630 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993), rejected the use of motions for summary judgment to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint and characterized language in Boucher 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 the legal sufficiency of a complaint. | 2 | 5 |
Burke v. Avitabilegreen2 sentences2002Although the Appellate Court in Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 n. 9, 630 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993), rejected the use of motions for summary judgment to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint and characterized language in Boucher as "anomalous," a more recent appellate opinion has stated that a motion for summary judgment is a proper procedural vehicle to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. 2001Although the Appellate Court in Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 n. 9, 630 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993), rejected the use of motions for summary judgment to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint and characterized language in Boucher 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 the legal sufficiency of a complaint. | 2 | 5 |
Burke v. Avitabilegreen2 sentences2002Although the Appellate Court in Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 n. 9, 630 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993), rejected the use of motions for summary judgment to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint and characterized language in Boucher as "anomalous," a more recent appellate opinion has stated that a motion for summary judgment is a proper procedural vehicle to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. 2002Although the Appellate Court in Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 n. 9, 630 A.2d 624 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993), rejected the use of motions for summary judgment to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint and characterized language in Boucher as "anomalous," a more recent appellate opinion has stated that a motion for summary judgment is a proper procedural vehicle to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. | 2 | 5 |
Grant v. Bassmangreen2 sentences1996"A claim that a injured party has made an exclusive election of workers' compensation is properly raised by a special defense." Grant v. Bassman , 221 Conn. 465 , 472 , 604 A.2d 814 CT Page 7296 (1992); see also Caron v. Connecticut Light Power Co. , Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. 32 08 34 (April 16, 1996, Moraghan, J.) (holding that a special defense, and not a motion to strike, is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act). 1996"A claim that a injured party has made an exclusive election of workers' compensation is properly raised by a special defense." Grant v. Bassman , 221 Conn. 465 , 472 , 604 A.2d 814 CT Page 7296 (1992); see also Caron v. Connecticut Light Power Co. , Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. 32 08 34 (April 16, 1996, Moraghan, J.) (holding that a special defense, and not a motion to strike, is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act). | 1 | 7 |
Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Murogreen1 sentence2018See LaBow v. LaBow , 85 Conn. App. 746 , 750, 858 A.2d 882 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Labow v. Labowgreen2 sentences2018See LaBow v. LaBow , 85 Conn. App. 746 , 750, 858 A.2d 882 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005). 2018See LaBow v. LaBow , 85 Conn. App. 746 , 750, 858 A.2d 882 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Solomon v. Connecticut Medical Examining Boardgreen1 sentence2018See LaBow v. LaBow , 85 Conn. App. 746 , 750, 858 A.2d 882 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 906 , 868 A.2d 747 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc.green2 sentences2009See Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 280 Conn. 225, 256 , 905 A.2d 1165 (2006) (“The proper procedural vehicle to challenge the legal sufficiency of a proposed pleading is a motion to strike, rather than an objection to a motion to amend. 2009See Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 280 Conn. 225, 256 , 905 A.2d 1165 (2006) (“The proper procedural vehicle to challenge the legal sufficiency of a proposed pleading is a motion to strike, rather than an objection to a motion to amend. | 1 | 1 |
Newman v. Goldengreen2 sentences2006See Practice Book § 10-39. 20 Thus, even if a proposed pleading is alleged to be insufficient, a “plaintiff should be permitted to file [the amended pleading], so that the issues arising under it may be determined in proceedings properly adapted to that end.” Newman v. Golden, 108 Conn. 676, 680 , 144 A. 467 (1929) (trial court improperly denied plaintiffs motion to file substitute pleading on ground that proposed pleading failed to state claim); see also Smith v. Furness, 117 Conn. 97, 100 , 166 A. 759 (1933) (“[w]e go no farther . . . than to point out that it was error for the trial court t 2006See Practice Book § 10-39. 20 Thus, even if a proposed pleading is alleged to be insufficient, a “plaintiff should be permitted to file [the amended pleading], so that the issues arising under it may be determined in proceedings properly adapted to that end.” Newman v. Golden, 108 Conn. 676, 680 , 144 A. 467 (1929) (trial court improperly denied plaintiffs motion to file substitute pleading on ground that proposed pleading failed to state claim); see also Smith v. Furness, 117 Conn. 97, 100 , 166 A. 759 (1933) (“[w]e go no farther . . . than to point out that it was error for the trial court t | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Furnessgreen2 sentences2006See Practice Book § 10-39. 20 Thus, even if a proposed pleading is alleged to be insufficient, a “plaintiff should be permitted to file [the amended pleading], so that the issues arising under it may be determined in proceedings properly adapted to that end.” Newman v. Golden, 108 Conn. 676, 680 , 144 A. 467 (1929) (trial court improperly denied plaintiffs motion to file substitute pleading on ground that proposed pleading failed to state claim); see also Smith v. Furness, 117 Conn. 97, 100 , 166 A. 759 (1933) (“[w]e go no farther . . . than to point out that it was error for the trial court t 2006See Practice Book § 10-39. 20 Thus, even if a proposed pleading is alleged to be insufficient, a “plaintiff should be permitted to file [the amended pleading], so that the issues arising under it may be determined in proceedings properly adapted to that end.” Newman v. Golden, 108 Conn. 676, 680 , 144 A. 467 (1929) (trial court improperly denied plaintiffs motion to file substitute pleading on ground that proposed pleading failed to state claim); see also Smith v. Furness, 117 Conn. 97, 100 , 166 A. 759 (1933) (“[w]e go no farther . . . than to point out that it was error for the trial court t | 1 | 1 |
Shaham v. Wheeler, No. 321879 (Jun. 26, 1996)green2 sentences1999Lewis J.); accord Shaham v. Wheeler, Superior Court, Judicial District of Danbury, 17 Conn. L. 1999Grady v. Guerin, Superior Court, Judicial District of CT Page 14587 Stamford — Norwalk at Norwalk, Docket No. 160239 (April 23, 1998, Lewis, J.); accord Shaham v. Wheeler, Superior Court, Judicial District of Danbury, Docket No. 321879 (June 26, 1996, Moraghan, J.) ( 17 Conn. L. | 1 | 1 |
Atkinson v. Berlonigreen2 sentences1993See Atkinson v. Belroni [Berloni], 23 Conn. App. 325 , 328 , 580 A.2d 84 (1990); Practice Book 152. 1993See Atkinson v. Belroni [Berloni], 23 Conn. App. 325 , 328 , 580 A.2d 84 (1990); Practice Book 152. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Upson v. State
green
2 sentences1995"Effective July 1, 1978, the motion to dismiss replaced both the plea in abatement and the motion to erase as the proper procedural vehicle to test the trial court's jurisdiction." Upson v. State, supra, 624-25 n. 4. 1993According to General Statutes, Sec. 52-185 (d), "[i]if there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this section, or if the authority signing a writ has failed to certify in accordance with any statute or rule that he has personal knowledge as to the financial responsibility of the plaintiff and deems it sufficient, the validity of the writ and service shall not be affected unless the failure is made a ground of a plea in abatement." "Effective July 1, 1978, the motion to dismiss replaced . . . the plea in abatement . . . as the proper procedural vehicle to test the trial court's | 4 | 1991–1995 |
Bennett v. Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences1996"The purpose of a special defense is to plead facts that are consistent with the allegations of the complaint but demonstrate, nonetheless, that the plaintiff has no cause of action." Grant v. Bassman 221 Conn. 465 , 472-73 ; Bennett v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford, 230 Conn. 795 , 802 ; Practice Book, Sec. 164. 1996"The purpose of a special defense is to plead facts that are consistent with the allegations of the complaint but demonstrate, nonetheless, that the plaintiff has no cause of action." Grant v. Bassman, 221 Conn. 465 , 472-73 ; Bennett v. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford, 230 Conn. 795 , 802 ; Practice Book § 164. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Plante v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital
green
1 sentence2012The court agreed with the plaintiff and informed all parties that it would follow the procedure set forth in Plante v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, supra, 300 Conn. 33 , whereby it would bifurcate the action and hear evidence and argument on the claim that the action was saved by § 52-592 (a) separately from the underlying tort action. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ferreira v. Pringle
green
1 sentence2009For this proposition, the defendant relies on our Supreme Court’s decision in Ferreira v. Pringle, supra, 255 Conn. 330 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Zirinsky v. Zirinsky
green
2 sentences2005Zirinsky v. Zirinsky, 87 Conn. App. 257, 268 , 865 A.2d 488 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 916 , 871 A.2d 372 (2005). 2005Zirinsky v. Zirinsky, 87 Conn. App. 257, 268 , 865 A.2d 488 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 916 , 871 A.2d 372 (2005). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. John M.
green
2 sentences2005Zirinsky v. Zirinsky, 87 Conn. App. 257, 268 , 865 A.2d 488 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 916 , 871 A.2d 372 (2005). 2005Zirinsky v. Zirinsky, 87 Conn. App. 257, 268 , 865 A.2d 488 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 916 , 871 A.2d 372 (2005). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Connecticut National Bank v. Douglas
green
2 sentences1995On a motion to strike, "the trial court [has an]. . . obligation to take the facts to be those alleged in the special defenses and to construe the defenses in the manner most favorable to sustaining their legal sufficiency." Connecticut National Bank v. Douglas , 221 Conn. 530 , 536 , 606 A.2d 684 (1992). 1995On a motion to strike, "the trial court [has an]. . . obligation to take the facts to be those alleged in the special defenses and to construe the defenses in the manner most favorable to sustaining their legal sufficiency." Connecticut National Bank v. Douglas , 221 Conn. 530 , 536 , 606 A.2d 684 (1992). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995"In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the . . . [pleading]." Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc. , 224 Conn. 210 , 215 , 618 A.2d 25 (1992). 1995"In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the . . . [pleading]." Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc. , 224 Conn. 210 , 215 , 618 A.2d 25 (1992). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Lake Phipps Land Owners Corp.
green
2 sentences1995Commissioner v. Lake Phipps Land Owners Corp., 3 Conn. App. 100 , 102 n. 2, 485 A.2d 580 (1985). "`The purpose of a motion to strike is to `contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.' CT Page 12000 In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. 1995Commissioner v. Lake Phipps Land Owners Corp., 3 Conn. App. 100 , 102 n. 2, 485 A.2d 580 (1985). "`The purpose of a motion to strike is to `contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.' CT Page 12000 In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Carten v. Carten
green
2 sentences1995"Lack of jurisdiction, however, may be raised at any time and not necessarily through the formality of a motion to erase, for the question, once raised, must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented." Carten v. Carten, 153 Conn. 603 , 610 , 219 A.2d 711 (1966). 1995"Lack of jurisdiction, however, may be raised at any time and not necessarily through the formality of a motion to erase, for the question, once raised, must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented." Carten v. Carten, 153 Conn. 603 , 610 , 219 A.2d 711 (1966). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Wiley v. Lloyd
neutral
1 sentence1992Wiley v. Lloyd, 4 Conn. App. 447 , (1985). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.