Loehn v. Rosenshien Associates, No. Cv86 23 53 73 (Dec. 26, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Loehn v. Rosenshien Associates, No. Cv86 23 53 73 (Dec. 26, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 10829

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 26, 1991

DocketNo. CV86 23 53 73

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 10829 (Loehn v. Rosenshien Associates, No. Cv86 23 53 73 (Dec. 26, 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

Loehn v. Rosenshien Associates, No. Cv86 23 53 73 (Dec. 26, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 10829 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (dated November 4, 1991) is granted as to requests 1-3; and denied as to request 4.

The objection to the addition of count 4 based on a violation of the statute of limitations is proper. See Bloniaz v. Bael, 2 Conn. L. Rrt. 721 (1990) and Felsted v. Kimberly Auto Services, Inc., 25 Conn. App. 665 (1991).

The proposed fourth count raises a new course of action sounding in intentional or absolute nuisance (DeLahunta v. Waterbury,134 Conn. 630, 634 (1948)) which does not relate back to the original complaint. See Patterson v. Szaba Food Service of New York, Inc., 14 Conn. App. 178 (1982).

Therefore the plaintiff is denied permission to amend her

KATZ, JUDGE CT Page 10830

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.] CT Page 10831

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.] CT Page 10832

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.] CT Page 10833

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.] CT Page 10834

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