Fairfield University v. Newton, No. Cv93 030 70 05 (Mar. 14, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Fairfield University v. Newton, No. Cv93 030 70 05 (Mar. 14, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 2150

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided March 14, 1996·No. No. CV93 030 70 05·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER The plaintiff's objections to "For the Record #1" (#176), "For the Record #2 (#175), Objection to Defendant's Motion for Legal Fees Fraud Acts of Plaintiffs (#177), and Objection to Motion for $12 million dollars in damages to be payable by the Board of Directors of Plaintiff/Fairfield University (#178) and Objection #179 are all SUSTAINED. The creation of such innovative pleadings is discountenanced. The defendant is cautioned that the right to appear pro se, like the right of an attorney to appear for a client, is not absolute but subject to the condition that the rules of practice be followed. The right will be forfeited upon the repeated and wilful failure to follow the rules or the repeated filing of frivolous pleadings. Cf. In re Martin v.Trigona, 573 F. SUP. 1245 (D. Conn. 1983), modified, In reMartin v. Trigona, 739 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984), on remand, 592 F. Sup. 1566 (D. Conn. 1984).

LEVIN, JUDGE.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER The plaintiff's objections to "For the Record #1" (#176), "For the Record #2 (#175), Objection to Defendant's Motion for Legal Fees Fraud Acts of Plaintiffs (#177), and Objection to Motion for $12 million dollars in damages to be payable by the Board of Directors of Plaintiff/Fairfield University (#178) and Objection #179 are all SUSTAINED. The creation of such innovative pleadings is discountenanced. The defendant is cautioned that the right to appear pro se, like the right of an attorney to appear for a client, is not absolute but subject to the condition that the rules of practice be followed. The right will be forfeited upon the repeated and wilful failure to follow the rules or the repeated filing of frivolous pleadings. Cf. In re Martin v.Trigona, 573 F. SUP. 1245 (D. Conn. 1983), modified, In reMartin v. Trigona, 739 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984), on remand, 592 F. Sup. 1566 (D. Conn. 1984).

LEVIN, JUDGE.

Fairfield University v. Newton, No. Cv93 030 70 05 (Mar. 14, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 2150 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 2150 (Fairfield University v. Newton, No. Cv93 030 70 05 (Mar. 14, 1996)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related