Herbst v. City of Waterbury

Connecticut Superior Court

Herbst v. City of Waterbury

14 Conn. Super. Ct. 377

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 30, 1946

DocketFile No. 14827

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Conn. Super. Ct. 377 (Herbst v. City of Waterbury) 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

Herbst v. City of Waterbury, 14 Conn. Super. Ct. 377 (Colo. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

The second special defense, dated April 9, 1946 and filed June 12, 1946, is a restatement of the same matter originally set forth in the first special defense filed June 8, 1945, and expunged therefrom by the court (McLaughlin,J.) November 28, 1945, and is improperly filed.

The fifth special defense, dated April 9, 1946 and filed June 12, 1946, is a rearrangement of the language and a restatement of the same matter originally set forth in the sixth special defense filed June 8, 1945, and expunged by the court (McLauglin, J.) November 28, 1945, and is improperly filed.

"Parties cannot be permitted to waste the time of courts by the repetition in new pleadings of claims which have been set up on the record and overruled at an earlier stage of the proceedings."Goldberg v. Kaplan, 101 Conn. 432, 438; Hillyer v. Winsted, 77 Conn. 304, 306.

The motion to strike out defendant's second and fifth special defense is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The second special defense, dated April 9, 1946 and filed June 12, 1946, is a restatement of the same matter originally set forth in the first special defense filed June 8, 1945, and expunged therefrom by the court (McLaughlin,J.) November 28, 1945, and is improperly filed.

The fifth special defense, dated April 9, 1946 and filed June 12, 1946, is a rearrangement of the language and a restatement of the same matter originally set forth in the sixth special defense filed June 8, 1945, and expunged by the court (McLauglin, J.) November 28, 1945, and is improperly filed.

"Parties cannot be permitted to waste the time of courts by the repetition in new pleadings of claims which have been set up on the record and overruled at an earlier stage of the proceedings."Goldberg v. Kaplan, 101 Conn. 432, 438; Hillyer v. Winsted, 77 Conn. 304, 306.

The motion to strike out defendant's second and fifth special defense is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Conn. Super. Ct. 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbst-v-city-of-waterbury-connsuperct-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack