Estate of Rheault v. Doheny, No. 32 91 31 (Jan. 29, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Estate of Rheault v. Doheny, No. 32 91 31 (Jan. 29, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 998

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1998

DocketNo. 32 91 31

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 998 (Estate of Rheault v. Doheny, No. 32 91 31 (Jan. 29, 1998)) 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

Estate of Rheault v. Doheny, No. 32 91 31 (Jan. 29, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 998 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND REARGUMENT The court, Moraghan, J., denied the plaintiff's motion to substitute on January 13, 1998. Accordingly, counts one and two of the complaint must be dismissed. See Isaac v. Mount SinaiHospital, 3 Conn. App. 598, 600, 490 A.2d 1024, cert. denied,196 Conn. 807, 494 A.2d 904 (1985) (an estate can neither sue or be sued). Because the plaintiff's loss of consortium claims are derivative of counts one and two, counts three and four must also be dismissed. See Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners,219 Conn. 179, 199, 592 A.2d 912 (1991); Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital,176 Conn. 485, 494, 408 A.2d 260 (1979); Fusaro v. Vacca, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at New London, Docket No. 528048 (November 24, 1993, Hurley, J.). Therefore, after reconsideration, it is the decision of this court that the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.¹

Leheny, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND REARGUMENT The court, Moraghan, J., denied the plaintiff's motion to substitute on January 13, 1998. Accordingly, counts one and two of the complaint must be dismissed. See Isaac v. Mount SinaiHospital, 3 Conn. App. 598, 600, 490 A.2d 1024, cert. denied,196 Conn. 807, 494 A.2d 904 (1985) (an estate can neither sue or be sued). Because the plaintiff's loss of consortium claims are derivative of counts one and two, counts three and four must also be dismissed. See Sanzone v. Board of Police Commissioners,219 Conn. 179, 199, 592 A.2d 912 (1991); Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital,176 Conn. 485, 494, 408 A.2d 260 (1979); Fusaro v. Vacca, Superior Court, judicial district of New London at New London, Docket No. 528048 (November 24, 1993, Hurley, J.). Therefore, after reconsideration, it is the decision of this court that the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.¹

Leheny, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-rheault-v-doheny-no-32-91-31-jan-29-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack