Kubowicz v. Kubowicz, No. Fa91 0278848 S (Jul. 31, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Kubowicz v. Kubowicz, No. Fa91 0278848 S (Jul. 31, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 6661

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 31, 1991

DocketNo. FA91 0278848 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 6661 (Kubowicz v. Kubowicz, No. Fa91 0278848 S (Jul. 31, 1991)) 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

Kubowicz v. Kubowicz, No. Fa91 0278848 S (Jul. 31, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 6661 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In their claims for relief the plaintiffs, inter alia, have requested that the mandatory injunction issued against one of the plaintiffs be dissolved.

". . . [C]ourts have inherent power to change or modify their own injunctions where circumstances or pertinent law have so changed as to make it equitable to do so." Dept. of Health Services v. CHRO, 198 Conn. 479, 487 (1986). See also Conservation Commission v. Price, 5 Conn. App. 70, 73 (1985). "Familiar equity procedure assures opportunity for modifying or vacating an injunction when its continuation is no longer CT Page 6662 warranted." Waterbury Hospital v. Conn. Health Care Assoc.,186 Conn. 247, 251 (1982). In Waterbury Hospital "the situation that existed at the time of trial upon which the trial court ordered the injunctive relief no longer exists." Id.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleges a change of circumstances since the mandatory injunction took effect which they claim should induce a court to modify that order. Whether that has in fact occurred is a question of fact and, therefore, the motion for summary judgment must be denied.

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In their claims for relief the plaintiffs, inter alia, have requested that the mandatory injunction issued against one of the plaintiffs be dissolved.

". . . [C]ourts have inherent power to change or modify their own injunctions where circumstances or pertinent law have so changed as to make it equitable to do so." Dept. of Health Services v. CHRO, 198 Conn. 479, 487 (1986). See also Conservation Commission v. Price, 5 Conn. App. 70, 73 (1985). "Familiar equity procedure assures opportunity for modifying or vacating an injunction when its continuation is no longer CT Page 6662 warranted." Waterbury Hospital v. Conn. Health Care Assoc.,186 Conn. 247, 251 (1982). In Waterbury Hospital "the situation that existed at the time of trial upon which the trial court ordered the injunctive relief no longer exists." Id.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleges a change of circumstances since the mandatory injunction took effect which they claim should induce a court to modify that order. Whether that has in fact occurred is a question of fact and, therefore, the motion for summary judgment must be denied.

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 6661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kubowicz-v-kubowicz-no-fa91-0278848-s-jul-31-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack