Journal Publishing v. Hartford Courant, No. Cv 00 0801424 (Jul. 25, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

Journal Publishing v. Hartford Courant, No. Cv 00 0801424 (Jul. 25, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10153, 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 148

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 25, 2001

DocketNo. CV 00 0801424

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10153 (Journal Publishing v. Hartford Courant, No. Cv 00 0801424 (Jul. 25, 2001)) 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

Journal Publishing v. Hartford Courant, No. Cv 00 0801424 (Jul. 25, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10153, 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 148 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The testimony introduced by the plaintiff constitutes more than a mere suspicion of wrongdoing too vague as to warrant the granting of a bill of discovery. See, Cadle Co. v. Drubner, 64 Conn. App. 69 (2001). By contrast, the transcript of the March 2, 2001 hearing on the plaintiff's Motion to Perpetuate Testimony, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the court must, confirms the court's prior ruling that the plaintiff has met its burden of establishing probable cause to believe that the plaintiff has one or more potential causes of action against the defendant. See, Falco v. Institute of Living,254 Conn. 321, 332, 757 A.2d 571 (2000). Accordingly, the plaintiff has met her burden of proof and the court reaffirms it's decision of May 7, 2001.

Bryant, J. CT Page 10154

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 The testimony introduced by the plaintiff constitutes more than a mere suspicion of wrongdoing too vague as to warrant the granting of a bill of discovery. See, Cadle Co. v. Drubner, 64 Conn. App. 69 (2001). By contrast, the transcript of the March 2, 2001 hearing on the plaintiff's Motion to Perpetuate Testimony, when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff as the court must, confirms the court's prior ruling that the plaintiff has met its burden of establishing probable cause to believe that the plaintiff has one or more potential causes of action against the defendant. See, Falco v. Institute of Living,254 Conn. 321, 332, 757 A.2d 571 (2000). Accordingly, the plaintiff has met her burden of proof and the court reaffirms it's decision of May 7, 2001.

Bryant, J. CT Page 10154

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10153, 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/journal-publishing-v-hartford-courant-no-cv-00-0801424-jul-25-2001-connsuperct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack