Bartlett v. McCusker

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Bartlett v. McCusker

220 A.2d 162, 153 Conn. 745

DecidedJune 7, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.2d 162 (Bartlett v. McCusker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bartlett v. McCusker, 220 A.2d 162, 153 Conn. 745 (Colo. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion by the defendant The Hartford Courant Company to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Tolland County is dismissed because there is no appeal pending.

The motion by the defendant The Hartford Times, Inc., to dismiss the appeal from the Superior [746]*746Court in Tolland County is dismissed because there is no appeal pending.

Philip S. Walker, for the appellee (defendant The Hartford Courant Company). Robert P. Volpe, for the appellee (defendant The Hartford Times, Inc.). Harry Hammer, for the appellant (plaintiff). Argued June 7 decided June 7, 1966

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

The motion by the defendant The Hartford Courant Company to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Tolland County is dismissed because there is no appeal pending.

The motion by the defendant The Hartford Times, Inc., to dismiss the appeal from the Superior [746]*746Court in Tolland County is dismissed because there is no appeal pending.

Philip S. Walker, for the appellee (defendant The Hartford Courant Company). Robert P. Volpe, for the appellee (defendant The Hartford Times, Inc.). Harry Hammer, for the appellant (plaintiff). Argued June 7 decided June 7, 1966

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.2d 162, 153 Conn. 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartlett-v-mccusker-conn-1966.