Klanica v. Brodach-Briarcliffe, Inc., No. Cv96-0253418s (Sep. 5, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5578-III
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided September 5, 1996·No. No. CV96-0253418S·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER (re #103) After hearing held on defendants' motion to dismiss, it is hereby Ordered: denied, for the following reasons:

"[P]ursuant to Practice Book Sec. 198, the exclusive method to raise the issue of nonjoinder of an indispensable party is by way of a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint." Hilton v.New Haven 233 Conn. 701, 723 (1995). The failure to join an indispensable party does not implicate jurisdiction; W. G.Glenney Co. v. Bianco, 27 Conn. App. 199, 202 (1992); and will not defeat an action on a claim that the court lacked jurisdictional authority to render its judgment. DeRosa v.DeRosa, 22 Conn. App. 114, 117 (1990).

Gaffney, J.

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

Klanica v. Brodach-Briarcliffe, Inc., No. Cv96-0253418s (Sep. 5, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5578-III (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5578-III (Klanica v. Brodach-Briarcliffe, Inc., No. Cv96-0253418s (Sep. 5, 1996)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hilton v. City of New Haven
661 A.2d 973 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1995)
DeRosa v. DeRosa
575 A.2d 713 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1990)
W. G. Glenney Co. v. Bianco
604 A.2d 1345 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1992)