Binkiski v. City of New Haven

Connecticut Superior Court

Binkiski v. City of New Haven

11 Conn. Super. Ct. 447

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 26, 1943

DocketFile No. 63323

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Conn. Super. Ct. 447 (Binkiski v. City of New Haven) 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

Binkiski v. City of New Haven, 11 Conn. Super. Ct. 447 (Colo. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Counsel argued this demurrer on the assumption a preliminary statement of demurrer was incorporated in the demurrer.

The questions presented by this demurrer arise under section 1430e of the 1939 Supplement to the General Statutes. It concerns an action claiming damages in excess of the $15,000 limit provided by statute, and alleging loss of earnings and services of a minor boy. The question has been so frequently and so well discussed as not to require a lengthy memorandum.See Kowalsky vs. Leonard, 4 Conn. Sup. 219 (Inglis, J.);Lucier vs. Hittleman, 125 Conn. 635, 638, and Perlstein vs.Westport Sanitarium Co., 11 Conn. Sup. 117, 119 (O'Sullivan, J.). These cases stem from Kling vs. Torello, 87 Conn. 301. The recurring frequency, of so recent date of the questions involved merits the suggestion contained in Lucier vs.Hittleman, supra, p. 639, that the matter should be referred to the Legislature "as has been done in several of the states." (Italics added.)

The demurrer is sustained.

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

Counsel argued this demurrer on the assumption a preliminary statement of demurrer was incorporated in the demurrer.

The questions presented by this demurrer arise under section 1430e of the 1939 Supplement to the General Statutes. It concerns an action claiming damages in excess of the $15,000 limit provided by statute, and alleging loss of earnings and services of a minor boy. The question has been so frequently and so well discussed as not to require a lengthy memorandum.See Kowalsky vs. Leonard, 4 Conn. Sup. 219 (Inglis, J.);Lucier vs. Hittleman, 125 Conn. 635, 638, and Perlstein vs.Westport Sanitarium Co., 11 Conn. Sup. 117, 119 (O'Sullivan, J.). These cases stem from Kling vs. Torello, 87 Conn. 301. The recurring frequency, of so recent date of the questions involved merits the suggestion contained in Lucier vs.Hittleman, supra, p. 639, that the matter should be referred to the Legislature "as has been done in several of the states." (Italics added.)

The demurrer is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Conn. Super. Ct. 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/binkiski-v-city-of-new-haven-connsuperct-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack