Connecticut Television, Inc. v. Laughing

Connecticut Superior Court

Connecticut Television, Inc. v. Laughing

232 A.2d 117, 27 Conn. Super. Ct. 133, 27 Conn. Supp. 133, 1967 Conn. Super. LEXIS 210

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 5, 1967

DocketFile 150955

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 A.2d 117 (Connecticut Television, Inc. v. Laughing) 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

Connecticut Television, Inc. v. Laughing, 232 A.2d 117, 27 Conn. Super. Ct. 133, 27 Conn. Supp. 133, 1967 Conn. Super. LEXIS 210 (Colo. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Parskey, J.

The motion to dismiss is an anomaly in our trial practice. Although in the past this motion has been treated as a motion to erase; Ragali v. Holmes, 111 Conn. 663, 664 (1930); whose office was not to allege new matter but to take advantage of objections already apparent on the face of the record; Bethel & Redding Lime Co. v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 82 Conn. 135, 142 (1909); since the adoption of the 1963 Practice Book there is no justification for its continued use. The Practice Book recognizes only two methods of making a plea to the jurisdiction, namely, a plea in abatement; Practice Book §93; and a motion to erase. Practice Book § 94. Despite the fact that the motion to dismiss at the trial level is possessed of neither statutory nor case law authority; Stephenson, Conn. Civ. Proc. §77c; and that our Supreme Court has admonished that innovations should not be put into practice ex parte by counsel; Vigue v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 147 Conn. 305, 306 (1960); this motion, usually embroi *135 dered with its federal practice piping, continues to press for recognition in our courtrooms. Until such time as the rules are changed so as to permit its use, the court would be foolhardy to give it even color-able recognition.

Accordingly, the motions of Teleprompter Corporation of New York and Greater Hartford CATV, Inc., to dismiss are expunged as improperly filed. Snelling v. Merritt, 85 Conn. 83, 92 (1911).

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

Parskey, J.

The motion to dismiss is an anomaly in our trial practice. Although in the past this motion has been treated as a motion to erase; Ragali v. Holmes, 111 Conn. 663, 664 (1930); whose office was not to allege new matter but to take advantage of objections already apparent on the face of the record; Bethel & Redding Lime Co. v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 82 Conn. 135, 142 (1909); since the adoption of the 1963 Practice Book there is no justification for its continued use. The Practice Book recognizes only two methods of making a plea to the jurisdiction, namely, a plea in abatement; Practice Book §93; and a motion to erase. Practice Book § 94. Despite the fact that the motion to dismiss at the trial level is possessed of neither statutory nor case law authority; Stephenson, Conn. Civ. Proc. §77c; and that our Supreme Court has admonished that innovations should not be put into practice ex parte by counsel; Vigue v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 147 Conn. 305, 306 (1960); this motion, usually embroi *135 dered with its federal practice piping, continues to press for recognition in our courtrooms. Until such time as the rules are changed so as to permit its use, the court would be foolhardy to give it even color-able recognition.

Accordingly, the motions of Teleprompter Corporation of New York and Greater Hartford CATV, Inc., to dismiss are expunged as improperly filed. Snelling v. Merritt, 85 Conn. 83, 92 (1911).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.2d 117, 27 Conn. Super. Ct. 133, 27 Conn. Supp. 133, 1967 Conn. Super. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connecticut-television-inc-v-laughing-connsuperct-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack