Cabasquini v. Commissioner, No. Cv93 0346967 (Oct. 29, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Cabasquini v. Commissioner, No. Cv93 0346967 (Oct. 29, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 9239

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 29, 1993

DocketNo. CV93 0346967

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 9239 (Cabasquini v. Commissioner, No. Cv93 0346967 (Oct. 29, 1993)) 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

Cabasquini v. Commissioner, No. Cv93 0346967 (Oct. 29, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 9239 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS The plaintiff alleges that a payment made by the defendant was made illegally inasmuch as it was done without his authorization. This creates a question of fact and requires a determination whether the applicable law will allow the plaintiff to recover the funds alleged to have been paid by the defendant to a third party.

It appears that there is a possibility that some legally protected interest of the plaintiff has been adversely affected and therefore aggrievement has been established, O'Leary v. McGuinness,140 Conn. 80, 83.

Insofar as the validity of the plaintiff's claim is concerned a judgment of dismissal is only proper when the evidence CT Page 9240 produced by the plaintiff, if fully believed, would not permit the trier in reason to find the essential issues on the complaint in favor of the plaintiff. Minicozzi v. Atlantic Refining Co.,143 Conn. 226, 230. The court at this stage of the proceedings is unable to so conclude and accordingly the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

George W. Ripley, Judge

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 DISMISS The plaintiff alleges that a payment made by the defendant was made illegally inasmuch as it was done without his authorization. This creates a question of fact and requires a determination whether the applicable law will allow the plaintiff to recover the funds alleged to have been paid by the defendant to a third party.

It appears that there is a possibility that some legally protected interest of the plaintiff has been adversely affected and therefore aggrievement has been established, O'Leary v. McGuinness,140 Conn. 80, 83.

Insofar as the validity of the plaintiff's claim is concerned a judgment of dismissal is only proper when the evidence CT Page 9240 produced by the plaintiff, if fully believed, would not permit the trier in reason to find the essential issues on the complaint in favor of the plaintiff. Minicozzi v. Atlantic Refining Co.,143 Conn. 226, 230. The court at this stage of the proceedings is unable to so conclude and accordingly the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

George W. Ripley, Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 9239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabasquini-v-commissioner-no-cv93-0346967-oct-29-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack