Lo Sacco v. Parmelee

Connecticut Appellate Court

Lo Sacco v. Parmelee

556 A.2d 1058, 18 Conn. App. 808, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 103

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 13, 1989

Docket6815

StatusPublished

This text of 556 A.2d 1058 (Lo Sacco v. Parmelee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lo Sacco v. Parmelee, 556 A.2d 1058, 18 Conn. App. 808, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 103 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing this case for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 251, and from the denial of his motion to restore the case to the docket. The court erred in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence. Thus, the motion to restore this case to the docket should have been granted by the trial court.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to restore the case to the docket.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing this case for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence pursuant to Practice Book § 251, and from the denial of his motion to restore the case to the docket. The court erred in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute with reasonable diligence. Thus, the motion to restore this case to the docket should have been granted by the trial court.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to restore the case to the docket.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 A.2d 1058, 18 Conn. App. 808, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lo-sacco-v-parmelee-connappct-1989.