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

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 14, 1996

DocketNo. CV93 030 70 05

StatusUnpublished

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

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

Pincite

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER The plaintiff's objections to "For the Record #1" (#176), "For the Record #2 (#175), Objection to Defendant's Motion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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER The plaintiff's objections to "For the Record #1" (#176), "For the Record #2 (#175), Objection to Defendant's Motion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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 2150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairfield-university-v-newton-no-cv93-030-70-05-mar-14-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack