Hunting v. Town of Ashford, No. X07cv97-708165 (Nov. 10, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Hunting v. Town of Ashford, No. X07cv97-708165 (Nov. 10, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15128

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 10, 1999

DocketNo. X07CV97-708165

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15128 (Hunting v. Town of Ashford, No. X07cv97-708165 (Nov. 10, 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

Hunting v. Town of Ashford, No. X07cv97-708165 (Nov. 10, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15128 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER RE: APPORTIONMENT DEFENDANT STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS (# 102) On January 23, 1992, the apportionment defendant State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation (DOT) filed its Motion CT Page 15129 to Dismiss (#102), claiming that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The DOT was made a party to this case solely for apportionment purposes. In addition, there is presently a claim pending before the state claims commissioner.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the DOT's inclusion in this lawsuit, even for apportionment purposes. Cooper v. DeltaChi Housing Corporation, 41 Conn. App. 61 (1996). The pending claim before the claims commissioner does not alter this fact, nor does it play any role in the resolution of this motion. Id., Footnote 4.

Accordingly, since the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the inclusion of the DOT in the present litigation, the Motion to dismiss is granted.

It is so ordered.

BY THE COURT:

BISHOP, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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: APPORTIONMENT DEFENDANT STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS (# 102) On January 23, 1992, the apportionment defendant State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation (DOT) filed its Motion CT Page 15129 to Dismiss (#102), claiming that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to the application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The DOT was made a party to this case solely for apportionment purposes. In addition, there is presently a claim pending before the state claims commissioner.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the DOT's inclusion in this lawsuit, even for apportionment purposes. Cooper v. DeltaChi Housing Corporation, 41 Conn. App. 61 (1996). The pending claim before the claims commissioner does not alter this fact, nor does it play any role in the resolution of this motion. Id., Footnote 4.

Accordingly, since the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the inclusion of the DOT in the present litigation, the Motion to dismiss is granted.

It is so ordered.

BY THE COURT:

BISHOP, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunting-v-town-of-ashford-no-x07cv97-708165-nov-10-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack