Hogan v. New Milford Bank Trust Company, No. 29 45 78 (Dec. 13, 1990)

Connecticut Superior Court

Hogan v. New Milford Bank Trust Company, No. 29 45 78 (Dec. 13, 1990)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4724

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 13, 1990

DocketNo. 29 45 78

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4724 (Hogan v. New Milford Bank Trust Company, No. 29 45 78 (Dec. 13, 1990)) 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

Hogan v. New Milford Bank Trust Company, No. 29 45 78 (Dec. 13, 1990), 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4724 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM ON MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM (No. 118) The counterclaim filed by the defendant in this matter carries throughout its Five Counts allegations based upon vexations and malicious conduct on the part of the plaintiff resulting in loss to the defendant. Such a claim, as discussed in Blake v. Levy, 191 Conn. 257 requires that the complaint allege the disposition and the prior lawsuit in the pleaders favor. As this allegation does not appear in any of the Counts, One, Two, Three and Four, the Motion is granted.

As to the Fifth Count the motion is denied, as the "CUTPA" allegations sufficient to constitute a claim under 14-110b do not require such a prerequisite.

GEORGE W. RIPLEY, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM ON MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM (No. 118) The counterclaim filed by the defendant in this matter carries throughout its Five Counts allegations based upon vexations and malicious conduct on the part of the plaintiff resulting in loss to the defendant. Such a claim, as discussed in Blake v. Levy, 191 Conn. 257 requires that the complaint allege the disposition and the prior lawsuit in the pleaders favor. As this allegation does not appear in any of the Counts, One, Two, Three and Four, the Motion is granted.

As to the Fifth Count the motion is denied, as the "CUTPA" allegations sufficient to constitute a claim under 14-110b do not require such a prerequisite.

GEORGE W. RIPLEY, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogan-v-new-milford-bank-trust-company-no-29-45-78-dec-13-1990-connsuperct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack