Balsome v. Quarry Town Stables, Inc., No. Cv96-80604 (Aug. 4, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Balsome v. Quarry Town Stables, Inc., No. Cv96-80604 (Aug. 4, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 8240

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 4, 1997

DocketNo. CV96-80604

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 8240 (Balsome v. Quarry Town Stables, Inc., No. Cv96-80604 (Aug. 4, 1997)) 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

Balsome v. Quarry Town Stables, Inc., No. Cv96-80604 (Aug. 4, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 8240 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKECOUNT TWO (#104) The defendant has moved to strike the second count of the plaintiff's complaint on grounds that Connecticut does not recognize a cause of action for an implied warranty of good and workmanlike conduct arising out of an oral agreement for boarding plaintiff's horse at defendant's stables.

A motion to strike may be used "to test whether Connecticut is ready to recognize some newly emerging ground of liability." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Diviney v. Smith, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 287011 (February 26, 1992, 6 Conn. L. Rptr. 82, 87, n. 4.) (Katz, J.). Nevertheless, this court also finds "that when the motion to strike is being used to test a new cause of action, a trial court should permit the plaintiff to develop a factual basis for the claim. . . . Sometimes legal questions require a factual setting within which to be decided. Just because we have a pleading device called a motion to strike it [should not] be regarded as a straightjacket preventing a proper testing of new legal theories." Scalise v. Bristol Hospital, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 525217, (July 6, 1995, Corradino, J.) (14 Conn. L. Rptr. 534.).

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike the second count is hereby denied.

It is so ordered.

BY THE COURT: CT Page 8241

ARENA, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKECOUNT TWO (#104) The defendant has moved to strike the second count of the plaintiff's complaint on grounds that Connecticut does not recognize a cause of action for an implied warranty of good and workmanlike conduct arising out of an oral agreement for boarding plaintiff's horse at defendant's stables.

A motion to strike may be used "to test whether Connecticut is ready to recognize some newly emerging ground of liability." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Diviney v. Smith, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 287011 (February 26, 1992, 6 Conn. L. Rptr. 82, 87, n. 4.) (Katz, J.). Nevertheless, this court also finds "that when the motion to strike is being used to test a new cause of action, a trial court should permit the plaintiff to develop a factual basis for the claim. . . . Sometimes legal questions require a factual setting within which to be decided. Just because we have a pleading device called a motion to strike it [should not] be regarded as a straightjacket preventing a proper testing of new legal theories." Scalise v. Bristol Hospital, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 525217, (July 6, 1995, Corradino, J.) (14 Conn. L. Rptr. 534.).

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike the second count is hereby denied.

It is so ordered.

BY THE COURT: CT Page 8241

ARENA, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 8240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balsome-v-quarry-town-stables-inc-no-cv96-80604-aug-4-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack