Connecticut Water Co. v. Town of Thomaston, No. Cv94 0535590 (Nov. 25, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Connecticut Water Co. v. Town of Thomaston, No. Cv94 0535590 (Nov. 25, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 10133

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1996

DocketNo. CV94 0535590

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 10133 (Connecticut Water Co. v. Town of Thomaston, No. Cv94 0535590 (Nov. 25, 1996)) 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 Water Co. v. Town of Thomaston, No. Cv94 0535590 (Nov. 25, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 10133 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR ARTICULATION The Court regrets the typographical areas. As to paragraph (1) of the motion for articulation. The court did mean on page 8 to refer to paragraph 13(e) not 13(d).

As to paragraph 3 the reference to CWC was incorrect and SCASCO was the intended reference.

As to paragraph 2, I think a request to revise would be or could have been appropriate because at this juncture paragraphs 13a, b and d really do not set forth different causes of action. In that sense the situation is not like that in Oink Inc. v. AnnSt. Limited, 12 Conn. L. Rptr. 547, 548 (1994). There separate statutory violations were alleged in the various subparagraphs.

CORRADINO, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR ARTICULATION The Court regrets the typographical areas. As to paragraph (1) of the motion for articulation. The court did mean on page 8 to refer to paragraph 13(e) not 13(d).

As to paragraph 3 the reference to CWC was incorrect and SCASCO was the intended reference.

As to paragraph 2, I think a request to revise would be or could have been appropriate because at this juncture paragraphs 13a, b and d really do not set forth different causes of action. In that sense the situation is not like that in Oink Inc. v. AnnSt. Limited, 12 Conn. L. Rptr. 547, 548 (1994). There separate statutory violations were alleged in the various subparagraphs.

CORRADINO, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 10133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connecticut-water-co-v-town-of-thomaston-no-cv94-0535590-nov-25-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack