Leeb-Lundberg v. McNamara and Kenney, No. Cv92 0125302 S (Jan. 18, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Leeb-Lundberg v. McNamara and Kenney, No. Cv92 0125302 S (Jan. 18, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 551

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 18, 1994

DocketNo. CV92 0125302 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 551 (Leeb-Lundberg v. McNamara and Kenney, No. Cv92 0125302 S (Jan. 18, 1994)) 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

Leeb-Lundberg v. McNamara and Kenney, No. Cv92 0125302 S (Jan. 18, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 551 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The motions are denied because the dismissal of Perrine v. Ackerly as to Randolph King was a favorable termination for the plaintiff in this action. The interests of the estate of CT Page 552 Theodore Perrine were characterized in the Fifth Count of the underlying action as "beneficial interests". Thus, they were distinct from the interests of Susan King. Randolph King's failure to obtain ancillary administration in Connecticut constituted a continuance of the action and the failure to appeal the dismissal constituted an abandonment of the action within ambit of DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (1991) and Colli v. Kamins, 39 Conn. Sup. 75 (1983[)].

MOTTOLESE, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The motions are denied because the dismissal of Perrine v. Ackerly as to Randolph King was a favorable termination for the plaintiff in this action. The interests of the estate of CT Page 552 Theodore Perrine were characterized in the Fifth Count of the underlying action as "beneficial interests". Thus, they were distinct from the interests of Susan King. Randolph King's failure to obtain ancillary administration in Connecticut constituted a continuance of the action and the failure to appeal the dismissal constituted an abandonment of the action within ambit of DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (1991) and Colli v. Kamins, 39 Conn. Sup. 75 (1983[)].

MOTTOLESE, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leeb-lundberg-v-mcnamara-and-kenney-no-cv92-0125302-s-jan-18-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack