Coble v. Maloney, No. 089843 (Jun. 18, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Coble v. Maloney, No. 089843 (Jun. 18, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5970

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 18, 1992

DocketNo. 089843

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5970 (Coble v. Maloney, No. 089843 (Jun. 18, 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

Coble v. Maloney, No. 089843 (Jun. 18, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5970 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER (#145) The motion of the defendants, Partners of New Haven Inc. and Robert F. Stickney, for summary judgment, having been presented, it is hereby ORDERED granted; for the following reasons

The plaintiff has filed no written objection to the motion or memorandum of law in opposition thereto. Additionally, the plaintiff filed no opposing affidavits or documentary evidence as the rules of practice require; P.B. 380; Cawley v. Schochat,21 Conn. App. 118, 121 (1990); nor did he make any request through counsel to be heard in oral argument. CT Page 5971

Although it has examined that which has been presented in the context of the applicable standard of proof; D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434 (1980); the court construes the plaintiff's inaction as his tacit admission that he cannot substantiate a claim (1) that there is a genuine issue of material fact and (2) that the defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Campbell v. Palmer, 20 Conn. App. 544, 547 (1990).

/s/ GAFFNEY, J. GAFFNEY

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER (#145) The motion of the defendants, Partners of New Haven Inc. and Robert F. Stickney, for summary judgment, having been presented, it is hereby ORDERED granted; for the following reasons

The plaintiff has filed no written objection to the motion or memorandum of law in opposition thereto. Additionally, the plaintiff filed no opposing affidavits or documentary evidence as the rules of practice require; P.B. 380; Cawley v. Schochat,21 Conn. App. 118, 121 (1990); nor did he make any request through counsel to be heard in oral argument. CT Page 5971

Although it has examined that which has been presented in the context of the applicable standard of proof; D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly, 180 Conn. 430, 434 (1980); the court construes the plaintiff's inaction as his tacit admission that he cannot substantiate a claim (1) that there is a genuine issue of material fact and (2) that the defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Campbell v. Palmer, 20 Conn. App. 544, 547 (1990).

/s/ GAFFNEY, J. GAFFNEY

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coble-v-maloney-no-089843-jun-18-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack