John Doe defendant (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

John Doe defendant in Connecticut

7 Connecticut opinions name it 1 courts 1994–1999 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
Wei Ping Wu v. Town of Fairfieldgreen
conn · 1987 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996See Wu v. Fairfield , 204 Conn. 435 , 528 A.2d 364 (1987).

1996See Wu v. Fairfield , 204 Conn. 435 , 528 A.2d 364 (1987).

11

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 (8)

CaseCitedYears
Donner v. Kearse green
conn · 1995
2 sentences

1999CT Page 275 "[A]llowing a defendant to cite in a John Doe defendant . . . is violative of the spirit and intent of Tort Reform II as recently clarified by our Supreme Court in Donner v. Kearse , 234 Conn. 660 , 670 , 662 A.2d 1269 (1995) . . ." (Alterations in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Daily v. Lencyk , Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 158194, 21 CONN.

1999CT Page 275 "[A]llowing a defendant to cite in a John Doe defendant . . . is violative of the spirit and intent of Tort Reform II as recently clarified by our Supreme Court in Donner v. Kearse , 234 Conn. 660 , 670 , 662 A.2d 1269 (1995) . . ." (Alterations in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Daily v. Lencyk , Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 158194, 21 CONN.

31996–1999
Connecticut Res. Rec. v. Refuse Gardens, No. 36 42 40 (Mar. 25, 1992) green
connsuperct · 1992
2 sentences

1995Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Refuse Gardens, 7 CSCR 439 (March 25, 1992, Schaller J) (holding that plaintiff could not substitute the real names of the defendants for the John Doe defendants upon discovery of their true identity because doing so would not correct a misnomer in the complaint but actually add new defendants).

1994Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Refuse Gardens, Inc., 7 CSCR 439 , 440 (March 25, 1992, Schaller, J.).

21994–1995
Catalan v. MacHnik Construction Co., Inc., No. 53 51 92 (Mar. 8, 1996) neutral
connsuperct · 1996
1 sentence

1999Catalan v. Machnik Construction Co., Inc. , Superior Court, judicial district of New London at New London, Docket No. 535192, 16 Conn. L.

11999–1999
Gulack v. Gulack green
connappct · 1993
2 sentences

1998The apportionment complaint was served upon the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles as the "statutory agent for service." The plaintiffs, Richard Daily, Sr., Carol Daily, and Richard Daily, Jr., have filed a motion to strike the apportionment CT Page 108 complaint on the ground that "the apportionment statute, [General Statutes § 52-102b ], does not permit the naming of fictitious `John Doe' defendants as apportionment defendants." "The proper method to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint is to make a motion to strike prior to trial." Gulack v. Gulack , 30 Conn. App. 305 , 309 , 620 A.2d

1998The apportionment complaint was served upon the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles as the "statutory agent for service." The plaintiffs, Richard Daily, Sr., Carol Daily, and Richard Daily, Jr., have filed a motion to strike the apportionment CT Page 108 complaint on the ground that "the apportionment statute, [General Statutes § 52-102b ], does not permit the naming of fictitious `John Doe' defendants as apportionment defendants." "The proper method to challenge the legal sufficiency of a complaint is to make a motion to strike prior to trial." Gulack v. Gulack , 30 Conn. App. 305 , 309 , 620 A.2d

11998–1998
Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority green
conn · 1985
1 sentence

1994Practice Book 142." Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 195 Conn. 682 , 687 90 A.2d 509 (1985). "`General Statutes, Section 52-89 [now Section 52-45a ] provides in part, that writs in civil actions shall describe the parties, presumably by their real names so that they may be identified.'" Farmers Mechanics Bank v. Nellis, 8 CSCR 97 , 98 (December 21, 1992, Higgins, J.), quoting Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48 , 59 , 156 A.2d 508 , appeal dismissed, 367 U.S. 497 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961). [N]aming John Doe defendants in a complaint and writ is improper under Connecticut Pra

11994–1994
Poe v. Ullman green
scotus · 1961
2 sentences

1994Practice Book 142." Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 195 Conn. 682 , 687 90 A.2d 509 (1985). "`General Statutes, Section 52-89 [now Section 52-45a ] provides in part, that writs in civil actions shall describe the parties, presumably by their real names so that they may be identified.'" Farmers Mechanics Bank v. Nellis, 8 CSCR 97 , 98 (December 21, 1992, Higgins, J.), quoting Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48 , 59 , 156 A.2d 508 , appeal dismissed, 367 U.S. 497 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961). [N]aming John Doe defendants in a complaint and writ is improper under Connecticut Pra

1994Practice Book 142." Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 195 Conn. 682 , 687 90 A.2d 509 (1985). "`General Statutes, Section 52-89 [now Section 52-45a ] provides in part, that writs in civil actions shall describe the parties, presumably by their real names so that they may be identified.'" Farmers Mechanics Bank v. Nellis, 8 CSCR 97 , 98 (December 21, 1992, Higgins, J.), quoting Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48 , 59 , 156 A.2d 508 , appeal dismissed, 367 U.S. 497 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961). [N]aming John Doe defendants in a complaint and writ is improper under Connecticut Pra

11994–1994
Buxton v. Ullman green
conn · 1959
2 sentences

1994Practice Book 142." Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 195 Conn. 682 , 687 90 A.2d 509 (1985). "`General Statutes, Section 52-89 [now Section 52-45a ] provides in part, that writs in civil actions shall describe the parties, presumably by their real names so that they may be identified.'" Farmers Mechanics Bank v. Nellis, 8 CSCR 97 , 98 (December 21, 1992, Higgins, J.), quoting Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48 , 59 , 156 A.2d 508 , appeal dismissed, 367 U.S. 497 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961). [N]aming John Doe defendants in a complaint and writ is improper under Connecticut Pra

1994Practice Book 142." Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 195 Conn. 682 , 687 90 A.2d 509 (1985). "`General Statutes, Section 52-89 [now Section 52-45a ] provides in part, that writs in civil actions shall describe the parties, presumably by their real names so that they may be identified.'" Farmers Mechanics Bank v. Nellis, 8 CSCR 97 , 98 (December 21, 1992, Higgins, J.), quoting Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48 , 59 , 156 A.2d 508 , appeal dismissed, 367 U.S. 497 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961). [N]aming John Doe defendants in a complaint and writ is improper under Connecticut Pra

11994–1994
Farmers Mechanics Bank v. Nellis, No. 63451 (Dec. 21, 1992) neutral
connsuperct · 1992
1 sentence

1994Practice Book 142." Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority, 195 Conn. 682 , 687 90 A.2d 509 (1985). "`General Statutes, Section 52-89 [now Section 52-45a ] provides in part, that writs in civil actions shall describe the parties, presumably by their real names so that they may be identified.'" Farmers Mechanics Bank v. Nellis, 8 CSCR 97 , 98 (December 21, 1992, Higgins, J.), quoting Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48 , 59 , 156 A.2d 508 , appeal dismissed, 367 U.S. 497 , 81 S.Ct. 1752 , 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961). [N]aming John Doe defendants in a complaint and writ is improper under Connecticut Pra

11994–1994

Where else courts name it

OH 47 (1992–2025) NY 20 (1991–2026) WI 16 (1967–2019) GA 15 (1990–2021) PA 14 (1978–2026) AR 11 (2002–2025) TX 9 (1984–2024) NJ 8 (1983–2026) MS 8 (1997–2017) CT 7 (1994–1999) IL 6 (1994–2019) WA 5 (2013–2023) WV 4 (2001–2020) RI 4 (1995–2012) VA 4 (1995–2003) OK 2 (1995–2006) NC 2 (1991–1991) MI 2 (1984–1986) OR 2 (2009–2009) TN 2 (2015–2015) SC 2 (2000–2002) NM 2 (1981–2000) MO 2 (1995–2015)

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