Hayes v. Williams, No. Cvnh 9803-8740 (May 19, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Hayes v. Williams, No. Cvnh 9803-8740 (May 19, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 6441

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 19, 1998

DocketNo. CVNH 9803-8740

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 6441 (Hayes v. Williams, No. Cvnh 9803-8740 (May 19, 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

Hayes v. Williams, No. Cvnh 9803-8740 (May 19, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 6441 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This is an action for wrongful entry and detainer pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-43. The complaint was tried to the court. The plaintiff does not seek any particular relief as provided by General Statutes §§ 47a-45a, 47a-46. Rather, the plaintiff seeks a determination that the defendant wrongfully locked him out of the dwelling he possessed. The plaintiff apparently seeks this determination to aid him in the defense of criminal charges brought against him by the defendant.

While the plaintiff appears to have been in possession of the premises on March 4, 1998, the date on which he claims to have been locked out,¹ he has since vacated the dwelling. No practical relief, such as an injunction, writ of restitution or damages, is sought, no right to such relief was proven and, therefore, no relief may be awarded by the court. For this reason, the action must be dismissed. See Barszck v. Solnit,46 Conn. App. 112, 698 A.2d 358 (1997).

Levin, J.Judge of the Superior Court

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 This is an action for wrongful entry and detainer pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-43. The complaint was tried to the court. The plaintiff does not seek any particular relief as provided by General Statutes §§ 47a-45a, 47a-46. Rather, the plaintiff seeks a determination that the defendant wrongfully locked him out of the dwelling he possessed. The plaintiff apparently seeks this determination to aid him in the defense of criminal charges brought against him by the defendant.

While the plaintiff appears to have been in possession of the premises on March 4, 1998, the date on which he claims to have been locked out,¹ he has since vacated the dwelling. No practical relief, such as an injunction, writ of restitution or damages, is sought, no right to such relief was proven and, therefore, no relief may be awarded by the court. For this reason, the action must be dismissed. See Barszck v. Solnit,46 Conn. App. 112, 698 A.2d 358 (1997).

Levin, J.Judge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 6441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-williams-no-cvnh-9803-8740-may-19-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack