Garfield v. Flanagan, No. 32 51 03 (May 9, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Garfield v. Flanagan, No. 32 51 03 (May 9, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 5982

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 9, 1997

DocketNo. 32 51 03

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 5982 (Garfield v. Flanagan, No. 32 51 03 (May 9, 1997)) 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

Garfield v. Flanagan, No. 32 51 03 (May 9, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 5982 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant, GMAC Leasing Corporation, has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the prior pending action doctrine. That doctrine applies "when two suits are virtually alike and are brought in the same jurisdiction." Beaudoin v. TownOil Co., 207 Conn. 575, 584 (1988). It has efficacy only where the actions are pending in the same jurisdiction and, consequently, pendency of an action in one state is not a ground for abatement of a later action in another state. Sauter v.Sauter, 4 Conn. App. 581, 584 (1985), citing Schaefer v. O. H.Tool Co., Inc., 110 Conn. 528, 535 (1930); 1 Stephenson, Conn. Civ. Proc. 104(a). Since the prior action in the present case is pending before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the defendant cannot avail himself of the benefit the prior pending CT Page 5983 action doctrine. The motion to dismiss is, accordingly, denied.

Moraghan, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant, GMAC Leasing Corporation, has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the prior pending action doctrine. That doctrine applies "when two suits are virtually alike and are brought in the same jurisdiction." Beaudoin v. TownOil Co., 207 Conn. 575, 584 (1988). It has efficacy only where the actions are pending in the same jurisdiction and, consequently, pendency of an action in one state is not a ground for abatement of a later action in another state. Sauter v.Sauter, 4 Conn. App. 581, 584 (1985), citing Schaefer v. O. H.Tool Co., Inc., 110 Conn. 528, 535 (1930); 1 Stephenson, Conn. Civ. Proc. 104(a). Since the prior action in the present case is pending before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the defendant cannot avail himself of the benefit the prior pending CT Page 5983 action doctrine. The motion to dismiss is, accordingly, denied.

Moraghan, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 5982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garfield-v-flanagan-no-32-51-03-may-9-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack