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

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10153, 30 Conn. L. Rptr. 148
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided July 25, 2001·No. No. CV 00 0801424·Unpublished

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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

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).

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10153 (Journal Publishing v. Hartford Courant, No. Cv 00 0801424 (Jul. 25, 2001)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Falco v. Institute of Living
757 A.2d 571 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2000)
Cadle Co. v. Drubner
777 A.2d 1286 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001)