Lee v. Shainess, No. Cv 93 52593 S (Nov. 18, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Lee v. Shainess, No. Cv 93 52593 S (Nov. 18, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10036

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

DocketNo. CV 93 52593 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10036 (Lee v. Shainess, No. Cv 93 52593 S (Nov. 18, 1993)) 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

Lee v. Shainess, No. Cv 93 52593 S (Nov. 18, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 10036 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE The plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Counterclaim is granted for the following reasons:

1. The counterclaim does not have a prayer for relief. Carchidi v. Roden Hiser, 209 Conn. 526, 531 (1989).

CT Page 10037

2. The defendant did not file an objection and serve memorandum of law. (C.P.B. 155), (nor did the defendant appear at the hearing).

Klaczak, J.

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