Hayle v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, No. Cv96-0474970s (May 19, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Hayle v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, No. Cv96-0474970s (May 19, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5777

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 19, 1999

DocketNo. CV96-0474970S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5777 (Hayle v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, No. Cv96-0474970s (May 19, 1999)) 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

Hayle v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, No. Cv96-0474970s (May 19, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5777 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER (re MOTION to REARGUE) The plaintiffs' motion to reargue the court's ruling (April 20, 1999) on defendants' objection to plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint having been presented, it is hereby Ordered: denied, for the following reason:

The plaintiffs having given notice (April 30, 1999) of their intent to appeal such ruling, it is the court's conclusion that the merits of such ruling should be reserved for decision by the appellate authority which the plaintiffs intend to invoke. Under such circumstances the "strong reasons" on which granting reargument should be predicated are here absent. Ryan v.Fairchild Finance Corp., 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 74 (1995), quoting from Ideal Financing Association v. LaBonte, 120 Conn. 190, 195 (1935).

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER (re MOTION to REARGUE) The plaintiffs' motion to reargue the court's ruling (April 20, 1999) on defendants' objection to plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint having been presented, it is hereby Ordered: denied, for the following reason:

The plaintiffs having given notice (April 30, 1999) of their intent to appeal such ruling, it is the court's conclusion that the merits of such ruling should be reserved for decision by the appellate authority which the plaintiffs intend to invoke. Under such circumstances the "strong reasons" on which granting reargument should be predicated are here absent. Ryan v.Fairchild Finance Corp., 14 Conn. L. Rptr. 74 (1995), quoting from Ideal Financing Association v. LaBonte, 120 Conn. 190, 195 (1935).

Gaffney, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayle-v-kentucky-fried-chicken-no-cv96-0474970s-may-19-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack