Arbeiter v. Bigelow, No. Cv91 028 91 82 (Mar. 20, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2009
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided March 20, 1995·No. No. CV91 028 91 82·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 131 The motion is denied. The defendant's rely, inter alia, upon deposition testimony in support of their motion.

"The primary purpose of a deposition taken pursuant to [the Practice Book rules] is discovery. . . . A response to a question propounded in a deposition is not a judicial admission. General Statutes § 52-200. At trial, in open court, the testimony [of the witness] may contradict her earlier statement [made at the deposition] and a question for the jury to decide may then emerge" Esposito v.Wethered, 4 Conn. App. 641, 645.

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE

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

Arbeiter v. Bigelow, No. Cv91 028 91 82 (Mar. 20, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2009 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2009 (Arbeiter v. Bigelow, No. Cv91 028 91 82 (Mar. 20, 1995)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Esposito v. Wethered
496 A.2d 222 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1985)