Bristol Shop. Plaza v. Vigilant Clean., No. Cv-87-0338958s (Sep. 1, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Bristol Shop. Plaza v. Vigilant Clean., No. Cv-87-0338958s (Sep. 1, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8296

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 1, 1992

DocketNo. CV-87-0338958 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8296 (Bristol Shop. Plaza v. Vigilant Clean., No. Cv-87-0338958s (Sep. 1, 1992)) 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

Bristol Shop. Plaza v. Vigilant Clean., No. Cv-87-0338958s (Sep. 1, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8296 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISSOLVE EX PARTE PREJUDGMENT ATTACHMENT The motion to dissolve, which is based on a claim that Pinsky v. Duncan, 898 F.2d 852 (2d Cir. 1990) and Connecticut v. Doehr, 111 S.Ct. 2105 (1991) should be applied retroactively, is denied. Even beyond the language of the "prospective effect only" language of the Pinsky II clarification, Pinsky v. Duncan, 907 F.2d 17 (2d. Cir. 1991) Connecticut courts faced with the issue have consistently adhered to the prospective approach. Johnson v. Olcese, No. CT Page 8297 052221, (Super.Ct., Oct. 2, 1991 Pickett, J.); Saden v. Johnson, 1 Conn. L. Reporter 402 (March 26, 1990, Cioffi, J.); New England Redemption v. Silver Realty Partnership, 2 Conn. L. Rptr. 216, 217 (August 1, 1990, Kulawiz, J.) Klein v. Willocks, 5 CTLR 316 (December 2, 1991, Katz, J.). The court notes that plaintiff has had available — but has not pursued — the right to request an evidentiary hearing as to whether probable cause exists to sustain the validity of the prejudgment remedy. Conn. Gen. Stat. ss.52-278k, 52-278e(c)

It is so ordered.

Schaller, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 ON MOTION TO DISSOLVE EX PARTE PREJUDGMENT ATTACHMENT The motion to dissolve, which is based on a claim that Pinsky v. Duncan, 898 F.2d 852 (2d Cir. 1990) and Connecticut v. Doehr, 111 S.Ct. 2105 (1991) should be applied retroactively, is denied. Even beyond the language of the "prospective effect only" language of the Pinsky II clarification, Pinsky v. Duncan, 907 F.2d 17 (2d. Cir. 1991) Connecticut courts faced with the issue have consistently adhered to the prospective approach. Johnson v. Olcese, No. CT Page 8297 052221, (Super.Ct., Oct. 2, 1991 Pickett, J.); Saden v. Johnson, 1 Conn. L. Reporter 402 (March 26, 1990, Cioffi, J.); New England Redemption v. Silver Realty Partnership, 2 Conn. L. Rptr. 216, 217 (August 1, 1990, Kulawiz, J.) Klein v. Willocks, 5 CTLR 316 (December 2, 1991, Katz, J.). The court notes that plaintiff has had available — but has not pursued — the right to request an evidentiary hearing as to whether probable cause exists to sustain the validity of the prejudgment remedy. Conn. Gen. Stat. ss.52-278k, 52-278e(c)

It is so ordered.

Schaller, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bristol-shop-plaza-v-vigilant-clean-no-cv-87-0338958s-sep-1-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack