Able Auto, Inc. v. Autosoft, Inc., No. Cv96-0055737s (Dec. 27, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Able Auto, Inc. v. Autosoft, Inc., No. Cv96-0055737s (Dec. 27, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7137

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 27, 1996

DocketNo. CV96-0055737S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7137 (Able Auto, Inc. v. Autosoft, Inc., No. Cv96-0055737s (Dec. 27, 1996)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Able Auto, Inc. v. Autosoft, Inc., No. Cv96-0055737s (Dec. 27, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7137 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM ON MOTION TO DISMISS # 103 Section 33-411 (c) of the Connecticut General Statutes provides that a foreign corporation shall be subject to suit in this state . . . when any claim arises out of any contract made or to be performed in Connecticut.

In this matter, the court cannot determine from the record before it that any contract existed between the parties to this action. There is no indication that any of the plaintiffs agents ever entered this state nor were any offices maintained herein. Accordingly, the court concludes that there are insufficient contacts within this state to subject the defendant to personal jurisdiction in this matter. see Loctec Corp. v. Hawk Golf BagCo., J.D. Danbury #323051, 17 Conn. L. Rptr. 265. The motion to dismiss is granted.

George W. Ripley Judge Referee

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM ON MOTION TO DISMISS # 103 Section 33-411 (c) of the Connecticut General Statutes provides that a foreign corporation shall be subject to suit in this state . . . when any claim arises out of any contract made or to be performed in Connecticut.

In this matter, the court cannot determine from the record before it that any contract existed between the parties to this action. There is no indication that any of the plaintiffs agents ever entered this state nor were any offices maintained herein. Accordingly, the court concludes that there are insufficient contacts within this state to subject the defendant to personal jurisdiction in this matter. see Loctec Corp. v. Hawk Golf BagCo., J.D. Danbury #323051, 17 Conn. L. Rptr. 265. The motion to dismiss is granted.

George W. Ripley Judge Referee

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/able-auto-inc-v-autosoft-inc-no-cv96-0055737s-dec-27-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack