vehicle challenge in Connecticut

1997Ivey, Barnum O'Mara v. Indian Harbor Properties, 190 Conn. 528 , 530 (1981).

1995Ivey, Barnum O'Mara v. Indian Harbor Properties , 190 Conn. 528 , 530 , 461 A.2d 1369 (1981).

2021In Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 , 613 A.2d 818 (1992), our Supreme Court ‘‘determined that the statu- tory right to habeas counsel for indigent petitioners provided in General Statutes § 51-296 (a) includes an implied requirement that such counsel be effective, and it held that the appropriate vehicle to challenge the effectiveness of habeas counsel is through a habeas petition.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gerald W. v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 456, 463 , 150 A.3d 729 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 908 , 152 A.3d 1246 (2017).

2021In Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 , 613 A.2d 818 (1992), our Supreme Court ‘‘determined that the statu- tory right to habeas counsel for indigent petitioners provided in General Statutes § 51-296 (a) includes an implied requirement that such counsel be effective, and it held that the appropriate vehicle to challenge the effectiveness of habeas counsel is through a habeas petition.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gerald W. v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 456, 463 , 150 A.3d 729 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 908 , 152 A.3d 1246 (2017).

2019In Lozada, the court explained that [t]o succeed in his bid for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must prove both (1) that his appointed habeas counsel was ineffective, and (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Adkins v. Commissioner of Correction, 185 Conn. App. 139 , 150–51, 196 A.3d 1149 , cert. denied, 330 Conn. 946 , 196 A.3d 326 (2018). ‘‘To succeed on an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, the petitioner must satisfy both the per- formance prong and the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct.

2019In Lozada, the court explained that [t]o succeed in his bid for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must prove both (1) that his appointed habeas counsel was ineffective, and (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Adkins v. Commissioner of Correction, 185 Conn. App. 139 , 150–51, 196 A.3d 1149 , cert. denied, 330 Conn. 946 , 196 A.3d 326 (2018). ‘‘To succeed on an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, the petitioner must satisfy both the per- formance prong and the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct.

2000“A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.” Upson v. State, 190 Conn. 622, 624 , 461 A.2d 991 (1983). “[A] motion to dismiss is not designed to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint in terms of whether it states a *409 cause of action.” Pratt v. Old Saybrook, 225 Conn. 177, 185 , 621 A.2d 1322 (1993). “[F]or the purpose of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded.” RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381 , 383 n.2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994).

2000“A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.” Upson v. State, 190 Conn. 622, 624 , 461 A.2d 991 (1983). “[A] motion to dismiss is not designed to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint in terms of whether it states a *409 cause of action.” Pratt v. Old Saybrook, 225 Conn. 177, 185 , 621 A.2d 1322 (1993). “[F]or the purpose of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded.” RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381 , 383 n.2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994).

1998Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., 196 Conn. 91 , 109 , 491 A.2d 368 (1985)." Benoit v. Connecticut Trails Council of Girl Scouts, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, CT Page 15350 Docket No. 083152 (November 22, 1989, Kulawiz, J.) (1 CONN.

1998Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., 196 Conn. 91 , 109 , 491 A.2d 368 (1985)." Benoit v. Connecticut Trails Council of Girl Scouts, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, CT Page 15350 Docket No. 083152 (November 22, 1989, Kulawiz, J.) (1 CONN.

2002A motion to strike is the proper vehicle to test if the complaint "fails to state a claim." Pratt v. Old Saybrook , 225 Conn. 177 , 185 (1993).

2000“A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.” Upson v. State, 190 Conn. 622, 624 , 461 A.2d 991 (1983). “[A] motion to dismiss is not designed to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint in terms of whether it states a *409 cause of action.” Pratt v. Old Saybrook, 225 Conn. 177, 185 , 621 A.2d 1322 (1993). “[F]or the purpose of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded.” RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381 , 383 n.2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994).

2021In Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 , 613 A.2d 818 (1992), our Supreme Court ‘‘determined that the statu- tory right to habeas counsel for indigent petitioners provided in General Statutes § 51-296 (a) includes an implied requirement that such counsel be effective, and it held that the appropriate vehicle to challenge the effectiveness of habeas counsel is through a habeas petition.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gerald W. v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 456, 463 , 150 A.3d 729 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 908 , 152 A.3d 1246 (2017).

2019In Lozada, the court explained that [t]o succeed in his bid for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must prove both (1) that his appointed habeas counsel was ineffective, and (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gerald W. v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 456 , 463–64, 150 A.3d 729 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 908 , 152 A.3d 1246 (2017).

2021In Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 , 613 A.2d 818 (1992), our Supreme Court ‘‘determined that the statu- tory right to habeas counsel for indigent petitioners provided in General Statutes § 51-296 (a) includes an implied requirement that such counsel be effective, and it held that the appropriate vehicle to challenge the effectiveness of habeas counsel is through a habeas petition.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gerald W. v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 456, 463 , 150 A.3d 729 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 908 , 152 A.3d 1246 (2017).

2021In Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 , 613 A.2d 818 (1992), our Supreme Court ‘‘determined that the statu- tory right to habeas counsel for indigent petitioners provided in General Statutes § 51-296 (a) includes an implied requirement that such counsel be effective, and it held that the appropriate vehicle to challenge the effectiveness of habeas counsel is through a habeas petition.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gerald W. v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 456, 463 , 150 A.3d 729 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 908 , 152 A.3d 1246 (2017).

2000“A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.” Upson v. State, 190 Conn. 622, 624 , 461 A.2d 991 (1983). “[A] motion to dismiss is not designed to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint in terms of whether it states a *409 cause of action.” Pratt v. Old Saybrook, 225 Conn. 177, 185 , 621 A.2d 1322 (1993). “[F]or the purpose of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded.” RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381 , 383 n.2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994).

2000“A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.” Upson v. State, 190 Conn. 622, 624 , 461 A.2d 991 (1983). “[A] motion to dismiss is not designed to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint in terms of whether it states a *409 cause of action.” Pratt v. Old Saybrook, 225 Conn. 177, 185 , 621 A.2d 1322 (1993). “[F]or the purpose of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded.” RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381 , 383 n.2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994).

2000"The effect of a failure to file an appeal on time is to make the appeal voidable but not void." Heiser v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., 150 Conn. 563 , 566 , 192 A.2d 44 (1963); see also VanBuskirk v. Knierim, 169 Conn. 382 , 387 , 362 A.2d 1334 (1975); Phinney v. Rosgen, 162 Conn. 36 , 41 , 291 A.2d 218 (1971); Fuller v. Marvin, 107 Conn. 354 , 357 , 140 A. 731 (1928) The proper vehicle to challenge an untimely appeal from probate is a motion to dismiss.

2000"The effect of a failure to file an appeal on time is to make the appeal voidable but not void." Heiser v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., 150 Conn. 563 , 566 , 192 A.2d 44 (1963); see also VanBuskirk v. Knierim, 169 Conn. 382 , 387 , 362 A.2d 1334 (1975); Phinney v. Rosgen, 162 Conn. 36 , 41 , 291 A.2d 218 (1971); Fuller v. Marvin, 107 Conn. 354 , 357 , 140 A. 731 (1928) The proper vehicle to challenge an untimely appeal from probate is a motion to dismiss.

1998Ordinarily, "[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." Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 , 630 A.2d 624 (1993), cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993); Marinaccio v. Zaczynski , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 565991 (Hennessey, J., May 14, 1998).

1996Burke v. Avitabile, 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 , 630 A.2d 624 (1993). cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 643 A.2d 297 (1993).

1998Ordinarily, "[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." Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 , 630 A.2d 624 (1993), cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993); Marinaccio v. Zaczynski , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 565991 (Hennessey, J., May 14, 1998).

1998Ordinarily, "[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." Burke v. Avitabile , 32 Conn. App. 765 , 772 , 630 A.2d 624 (1993), cert. denied, 228 Conn. 908 , 634 A.2d 297 (1993); Marinaccio v. Zaczynski , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 565991 (Hennessey, J., May 14, 1998).

1995Id.; see also: Dohn v. Simone, 8 CSCR 879 (July 20, 1993, Lewis, J.) ("[A] motion to strike is not the proper vehicle to test the sufficiency of the disclosure of defense filed pursuant to [Practice Book] § 236.) "`It is not the function of the court to pass summarily on the validity or legal sufficiency of the proposed defenses offered in the disclosure of defense if made in good faith.'" Deutsche Bank Co. v. Herman, 4 CSCR 771 , 772 (September 28, CT Page 8002 1989, Cioffi, J.), quoting Jennings v. Parson, 71 Conn. 413 , 417 , 42 A. 76 (1989).

1994"A motion to strike is not the proper vehicle to test the sufficiency of the disclosure of defenses. . ." Dohn v. Simone, supra. Special defenses have been filed and the FDIC should direct its motion to that pleading.

2022We reasoned that allowing the defen- dant to use the untimely motion for reconsideration as a vehicle to challenge the merits of the underlying judgment would ‘‘in effect, extend the time to appeal.’’ Id., 671 .

2021The question of whether the repre- sentation a petitioner received ‘‘was constitutionally inadequate is a mixed question of law and fact.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 543, 548 , 851 A.2d 313 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 914 , 859 A.2d 569 (2004). ‘‘In a habeas appeal, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a viola- tion of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of c

2021The question of whether the repre- sentation a petitioner received ‘‘was constitutionally inadequate is a mixed question of law and fact.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 543, 548 , 851 A.2d 313 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 914 , 859 A.2d 569 (2004). ‘‘In a habeas appeal, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a viola- tion of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of c

2021The question of whether the repre- sentation a petitioner received ‘‘was constitutionally inadequate is a mixed question of law and fact.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 543, 548 , 851 A.2d 313 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 914 , 859 A.2d 569 (2004). ‘‘In a habeas appeal, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a viola- tion of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of c

2021The question of whether the repre- sentation a petitioner received ‘‘was constitutionally inadequate is a mixed question of law and fact.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 543, 548 , 851 A.2d 313 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 914 , 859 A.2d 569 (2004). ‘‘In a habeas appeal, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a viola- tion of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of c

2021The question of whether the repre- sentation a petitioner received ‘‘was constitutionally inadequate is a mixed question of law and fact.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 543, 548 , 851 A.2d 313 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 914 , 859 A.2d 569 (2004). ‘‘In a habeas appeal, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a viola- tion of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of c

2021The question of whether the repre- sentation a petitioner received ‘‘was constitutionally inadequate is a mixed question of law and fact.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 543, 548 , 851 A.2d 313 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 914 , 859 A.2d 569 (2004). ‘‘In a habeas appeal, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a viola- tion of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of c

2021The question of whether the repre- sentation a petitioner received ‘‘was constitutionally inadequate is a mixed question of law and fact.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 543, 548 , 851 A.2d 313 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 914 , 859 A.2d 569 (2004). ‘‘In a habeas appeal, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a viola- tion of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of c

2021The question of whether the repre- sentation a petitioner received ‘‘was constitutionally inadequate is a mixed question of law and fact.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 543, 548 , 851 A.2d 313 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 914 , 859 A.2d 569 (2004). ‘‘In a habeas appeal, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a viola- tion of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of c

2019In Lozada, the court explained that [t]o succeed in his bid for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must prove both (1) that his appointed habeas counsel was ineffective, and (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Adkins v. Commissioner of Correction, 185 Conn. App. 139 , 150–51, 196 A.3d 1149 , cert. denied, 330 Conn. 946 , 196 A.3d 326 (2018). ‘‘To succeed on an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, the petitioner must satisfy both the per- formance prong and the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct.

2019In Lozada, the court explained that [t]o succeed in his bid for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner must prove both (1) that his appointed habeas counsel was ineffective, and (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Adkins v. Commissioner of Correction, 185 Conn. App. 139 , 150–51, 196 A.3d 1149 , cert. denied, 330 Conn. 946 , 196 A.3d 326 (2018). ‘‘To succeed on an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, the petitioner must satisfy both the per- formance prong and the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct.