Kenney v. Blakeslee

Connecticut Superior Court

Kenney v. Blakeslee

3 Conn. Super. Ct. 269

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1936

DocketFile No. 48452

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Conn. Super. Ct. 269 (Kenney v. Blakeslee) 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

Kenney v. Blakeslee, 3 Conn. Super. Ct. 269 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

This matter was before the court heretofore. A memorandum filed by the court, Cornell, J., suggested,

"The desirability that the question raised be disposed of in orderly fashion suggests the propriety of permitting the appellant to withdraw his answer and to file another and different pleading. This may be done, if done, on or before December 26th, 1935."

It appears to the court, upon examination of the file, that such course should have been followed. No change in the pleadings has been made since the filing of the memorandum referred to; the matter as it then was, having again been claimed upon the short calendar for a hearing upon the plea in abatement.

The court suggests that the course suggested by the court heretofore be considered by the appellant and that action in accordance therewith be taken on or before February 14, 1936.

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

This matter was before the court heretofore. A memorandum filed by the court, Cornell, J., suggested,

"The desirability that the question raised be disposed of in orderly fashion suggests the propriety of permitting the appellant to withdraw his answer and to file another and different pleading. This may be done, if done, on or before December 26th, 1935."

It appears to the court, upon examination of the file, that such course should have been followed. No change in the pleadings has been made since the filing of the memorandum referred to; the matter as it then was, having again been claimed upon the short calendar for a hearing upon the plea in abatement.

The court suggests that the course suggested by the court heretofore be considered by the appellant and that action in accordance therewith be taken on or before February 14, 1936.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Conn. Super. Ct. 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenney-v-blakeslee-connsuperct-1936.