Driver v. Felix, No. Cv-92-0296049 (Jan. 24, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Driver v. Felix, No. Cv-92-0296049 (Jan. 24, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 277

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 24, 1995

DocketNo. CV-92-0296049

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 277 (Driver v. Felix, No. Cv-92-0296049 (Jan. 24, 1995)) 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

Driver v. Felix, No. Cv-92-0296049 (Jan. 24, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 277 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The motion to open the judgment is denied. This, however, may not be construed as the disposition which this judge would have rendered in the absence of prior decisions in this case on the defendant's motion for a continuance and motion to "re-open judgment of default". (Sic)

"It is the policy of the law to bring about a trial on the merits of a dispute whenever possible and to secure for the litigant his day in court." Snow v. Calise, 174 Conn. 567, 574 (1978). Howeer [However], when she was the presiding courtside judge in this judicial district — a judicial district in which scarce judicial resources militate that only one judge may be assigned to courtside matters — Judge Vertefeuille denied the defendant's motion for continuance and motion to open the default. It now is more than ten years since our supreme court CT Page 278 observed that "[c]aseflow management places new demands on our already overworked judges because the judge must actively establish and enforce the pace of litigation coming before the court, rather than allowing the parties to do so. Judges must be firm and create the expectation that a case will go forward on the specific day that it is assigned. In order to dispose of our cases in a fair, timely, and efficient manner, everyone involved must be present on time, prepared, and ready to go forward. Because both courtrooms and judges are necessarily limited in number, burgeoning caseloads require that efficient use be made of the available space and judicial time. Careful calendar control is one proven method of increasing the number of case dispositions in the system." In re Mongillo, 190 Conn. 686, 691,461 A.2d 1387 (1983).

In view of this reality and of the discretion conferred on the then-presiding courtside judge with respect to case management, this judge has considered with some deference the decisions heretofore made by Judge Vertefeuille in this case in determining that the motion to open the judgment should be denied. Cf. Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 99, 98-100 (1982).

BY THE COURT

Levin, 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 The motion to open the judgment is denied. This, however, may not be construed as the disposition which this judge would have rendered in the absence of prior decisions in this case on the defendant's motion for a continuance and motion to "re-open judgment of default". (Sic)

"It is the policy of the law to bring about a trial on the merits of a dispute whenever possible and to secure for the litigant his day in court." Snow v. Calise, 174 Conn. 567, 574 (1978). Howeer [However], when she was the presiding courtside judge in this judicial district — a judicial district in which scarce judicial resources militate that only one judge may be assigned to courtside matters — Judge Vertefeuille denied the defendant's motion for continuance and motion to open the default. It now is more than ten years since our supreme court CT Page 278 observed that "[c]aseflow management places new demands on our already overworked judges because the judge must actively establish and enforce the pace of litigation coming before the court, rather than allowing the parties to do so. Judges must be firm and create the expectation that a case will go forward on the specific day that it is assigned. In order to dispose of our cases in a fair, timely, and efficient manner, everyone involved must be present on time, prepared, and ready to go forward. Because both courtrooms and judges are necessarily limited in number, burgeoning caseloads require that efficient use be made of the available space and judicial time. Careful calendar control is one proven method of increasing the number of case dispositions in the system." In re Mongillo, 190 Conn. 686, 691,461 A.2d 1387 (1983).

In view of this reality and of the discretion conferred on the then-presiding courtside judge with respect to case management, this judge has considered with some deference the decisions heretofore made by Judge Vertefeuille in this case in determining that the motion to open the judgment should be denied. Cf. Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 99, 98-100 (1982).

BY THE COURT

Levin, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driver-v-felix-no-cv-92-0296049-jan-24-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack