Kelly v. O'connell, No. Cv-88-0340578s (Feb. 3, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1062
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedFebruary 3, 1992
DocketNo. CV-88-0340578S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1062 (Kelly v. O'connell, No. Cv-88-0340578s (Feb. 3, 1992)) 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
Kelly v. O'connell, No. Cv-88-0340578s (Feb. 3, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1062 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on November 8, 1991, which verdict was accepted by the court on that date. The plaintiffs' motion to Set Aside the Verdict was filed in court on November 18, 1991.

The defendants now claim that the motion to Set Aside cannot be heard, as being in violation of Practice Book Sec. 320, which provides that a motion to set aside a verdict must be filed within five days from the day that the verdict is accepted or judgment rendered.

In response to the defendants' claim, the plaintiffs cite the following words from Sec. 320: ". . . provided that for good cause the court may extend this time."

Accordingly, the first question to be resolved by the court is whether such an extension may be granted by the court after the expiration of the five day period.

An examination of Small v. South Norwalk Savings Bank, 205 Conn. 741,758; Aubrey v. City Meriden, 121 Conn. 361, 365, 366; CT Page 1063 and Goral v. Kenney, 26 Conn. App. 231, 234-235 indicate that Sec. 320 must be strictly enforced and that an extension of time can only be granted when a motion for extension has been timely filed before the expiration of the five day period.

Accordingly, with some reluctance, the court must deny the Motion to Set Aside the Verdict.

Wright, J. State Trial Referee

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

Related

Aubrey v. City of Meriden
185 A. 87 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1936)
Dinkeloo v. City of New Haven
535 A.2d 1287 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1988)
Goral v. Kenney
600 A.2d 1031 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-oconnell-no-cv-88-0340578s-feb-3-1992-connsuperct-1992.