De Milo Company v. Comm'r of Transportation, No. 312894 (Sep. 23, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

De Milo Company v. Comm'r of Transportation, No. 312894 (Sep. 23, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 8066

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 23, 1991

DocketNo. 312894

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 8066 (De Milo Company v. Comm'r of Transportation, No. 312894 (Sep. 23, 1991)) 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

De Milo Company v. Comm'r of Transportation, No. 312894 (Sep. 23, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 8066 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO INTERVENE The State through the Commissioner of Transportation moves to intervene for the purpose of litigating its rights to any excess awarded by the court in the instant condemnation appeal, citing P.B. See, 99 and General Statutes 48-21.

The plaintiff, De Milo Company, objects to this motion and does so because it feels that the State's claim to any excess is invalid. It cites as authority Benson vs. Housing Authority, 145 Conn. 196, 202. However, that case asserts a CT Page 8067 proposition which is addressed to the merits of the State's claim, which should be litigated when the question of the disposal of any excess is determined at a subsequent hearing.

Reference is made to Interstate Fur Manufacturing Co. vs. Redevelopment Agency, 154 Conn. 600 for the procedure to be followed. That case indicates that a further hearing will be necessary after the excess, if any, has been ascertained.

The Motion to Intervene is granted.

JOHN M. ALEXANDER STATE TRIAL REFEREE

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