Kelly v. O'connell, No. Cv-88-0340578s (Feb. 3, 1992)
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.
Opinion
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,
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.