Cheh v. Blau, No. 32 26 06 (Apr. 23, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Cheh v. Blau, No. 32 26 06 (Apr. 23, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 4639

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 23, 1997

DocketNo. 32 26 06

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 4639 (Cheh v. Blau, No. 32 26 06 (Apr. 23, 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

Cheh v. Blau, No. 32 26 06 (Apr. 23, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 4639 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DANBURY HOSPITAL'S MOTION TO STRIKE NO. 107 The defendant, Danbury Hospital, seeks to strike count eight of the plaintiffs' complaint. Count eight seeks a recovery for loss of filial consortium. Despite the division of authority, this court holds that "the facts giving rise to [the claim] must be taken from the complaint." Kilbride v. Dushkin PublishingGroup, Inc., 186 Conn. 718, 719, 443 A.2d 922 (1982). On a CT Page 4640 motion to strike, the court "must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint . . . and cannot be aided by the assumption of any facts not therein alleged." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Liljedahl Bros., Inc. v.Grigsby, 215 Conn. 345, 348, 576 A.2d 149 (1990).

The eighth count sets forth a cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the defendant's (Danbury Hospital) motion to strike (No. 107) count eight of the revised complaint, is denied.

Grogins, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DANBURY HOSPITAL'S MOTION TO STRIKE NO. 107 The defendant, Danbury Hospital, seeks to strike count eight of the plaintiffs' complaint. Count eight seeks a recovery for loss of filial consortium. Despite the division of authority, this court holds that "the facts giving rise to [the claim] must be taken from the complaint." Kilbride v. Dushkin PublishingGroup, Inc., 186 Conn. 718, 719, 443 A.2d 922 (1982). On a CT Page 4640 motion to strike, the court "must take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint . . . and cannot be aided by the assumption of any facts not therein alleged." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Liljedahl Bros., Inc. v.Grigsby, 215 Conn. 345, 348, 576 A.2d 149 (1990).

The eighth count sets forth a cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the defendant's (Danbury Hospital) motion to strike (No. 107) count eight of the revised complaint, is denied.

Grogins, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 4639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheh-v-blau-no-32-26-06-apr-23-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack