Danziger v. Shaknaitis

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Danziger v. Shaknaitis

636 A.2d 846, 228 Conn. 914, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 454

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 22, 1993

DocketSC 14872

StatusPublished

This text of 636 A.2d 846 (Danziger v. Shaknaitis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Danziger v. Shaknaitis, 636 A.2d 846, 228 Conn. 914, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 454 (Colo. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff Rita Johnson’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 33 Conn. App. 6 (AC 12009), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s motion to amend the return date, having been filed after the original return date, could not be granted pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-72?”
*

It is hereby ordered, sua sponte, that the judgment of the Appellate Court in the captioned matter be summarily reversed in light of this court’s decision in Concept Associates, Ltd. v. Board of Tax Review, 229 Conn. 618, 626 (1994), and the case is remanded to that court with direction to remand the case to the trial court with direction to vacate its order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Rita Johnson. July 7, 1994.

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

The plaintiff Rita Johnson’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 33 Conn. App. 6 (AC 12009), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s motion to amend the return date, having been filed after the original return date, could not be granted pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-72?”
*

It is hereby ordered, sua sponte, that the judgment of the Appellate Court in the captioned matter be summarily reversed in light of this court’s decision in Concept Associates, Ltd. v. Board of Tax Review, 229 Conn. 618, 626 (1994), and the case is remanded to that court with direction to remand the case to the trial court with direction to vacate its order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Rita Johnson. July 7, 1994.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 A.2d 846, 228 Conn. 914, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danziger-v-shaknaitis-conn-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack