facts establishing defense (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

facts establishing defense in Connecticut

9 Connecticut opinions name it 1 courts 1979–1995 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green
conn · 1956 · cited in 6 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1979–1995
2 sentences

1992However, raising the issue on a motion to strike is proper where "all the facts establishing the defense are apparent from a reading of the complaint and no claim of tolling is made." Allen v. Endrukaitis, 35 Conn. Sup. 286 , 288 , 408 A.2d 673 (1979); see also Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 144 Conn. 170 , 171-72 , 127 A.2d 814 (1956).

1992However, raising the issue on a motion to strike is proper where "all the facts establishing the defense are apparent from a reading of the complaint and no claim of tolling is made." Allen v. Endrukaitis, 35 Conn. Sup. 286 , 288 , 408 A.2d 673 (1979); see also Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 144 Conn. 170 , 171-72 , 127 A.2d 814 (1956).

16

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Allen v. Endrukaitis green
connsuperct · 1979
2 sentences

1992However, raising the issue on a motion to strike is proper where "all the facts establishing the defense are apparent from a reading of the complaint and no claim of tolling is made." Allen v. Endrukaitis, 35 Conn. Sup. 286 , 288 , 408 A.2d 673 (1979); see also Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 144 Conn. 170 , 171-72 , 127 A.2d 814 (1956).

1992However, raising the issue on a motion to strike is proper where "all the facts establishing the defense are apparent from a reading of the complaint and no claim of tolling is made." Allen v. Endrukaitis, 35 Conn. Sup. 286 , 288 , 408 A.2d 673 (1979); see also Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 144 Conn. 170 , 171-72 , 127 A.2d 814 (1956).

41991–1992

Where else courts name it

NY 22 (1970–2020) CT 9 (1979–1995) ME 4 (1993–2021) TX 3 (2003–2022) ID 3 (1994–1997) FL 2 (2018–2020) MA 2 (1973–2013)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check