Delucia v. King, No. Cv92 029 58 70 (Jul. 27, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Delucia v. King, No. Cv92 029 58 70 (Jul. 27, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 7096

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 27, 1992

DocketNo. CV92 029 58 70

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 7096 (Delucia v. King, No. Cv92 029 58 70 (Jul. 27, 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

Delucia v. King, No. Cv92 029 58 70 (Jul. 27, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 7096 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION The plaintiffs seek a temporary injunction compelling the defendant to pay his share of a mortgage note on which he and the plaintiffs are jointly obligated. "An injunction is a harsh remedy and our courts have consistently held that its issuance is only proper in order to prevent irreparable injury." Everett v. Pabilonia, 11 Conn. App. 171, 178 (1987). "A party seeking injunction relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law. The allegations and proof are conditions precedent to the granting of an injunction." Hartford v. American Arbitration Association, 174 Conn. 472, 476 (1978). Here, the injury alleged by the plaintiffs can be fairly measured by a pecuniary standard. An award of damages will provide an adequate remedy. Because the plaintiffs have failed to allege and prove the conditions precedent to the issuance of an injunction, their application is denied.

GEORGE N. THIM, JUDGE CT Page 7097

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 RE: APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION The plaintiffs seek a temporary injunction compelling the defendant to pay his share of a mortgage note on which he and the plaintiffs are jointly obligated. "An injunction is a harsh remedy and our courts have consistently held that its issuance is only proper in order to prevent irreparable injury." Everett v. Pabilonia, 11 Conn. App. 171, 178 (1987). "A party seeking injunction relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law. The allegations and proof are conditions precedent to the granting of an injunction." Hartford v. American Arbitration Association, 174 Conn. 472, 476 (1978). Here, the injury alleged by the plaintiffs can be fairly measured by a pecuniary standard. An award of damages will provide an adequate remedy. Because the plaintiffs have failed to allege and prove the conditions precedent to the issuance of an injunction, their application is denied.

GEORGE N. THIM, JUDGE CT Page 7097

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 7096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delucia-v-king-no-cv92-029-58-70-jul-27-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack