Marino v. Harris, No. 091607 (Jun. 18, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Marino v. Harris, No. 091607 (Jun. 18, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5474

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 18, 1991

DocketNo. 091607

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5474 (Marino v. Harris, No. 091607 (Jun. 18, 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

Marino v. Harris, No. 091607 (Jun. 18, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5474 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] PER CURIAM PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RESTORE TO DOCKET DATED APRIL 1, 1991 The parties agree that a properly executed withdrawal form was presented to a temporary assistant clerk in the caseflow office of the courthouse. Thereafter, that document was never filed with the clerk at his office and can not now be located. The question presented to us in the first instance is whether this case has been effectively withdrawn. We do not think that the mere presentation of this particular form to a court official is sufficient to constitute legally a filing. Guss v. Guss, 1 Conn. App. 356 CT Page 5475 359 (1984): Connecticut Practice Book 127. Under our rules of practice, when the court, as here, is not in session, we think that the filing of documents takes place only with the clerk at his designated office. See generally 76 C.J.S. Records 4 and 7.

Since we hold that the action is not withdrawn, we deem this motion to be moot.¹

/s/ William Patrick Murray, J. WILLIAM PATRICK MURRAY A Judge of the Superior Court

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] PER CURIAM PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RESTORE TO DOCKET DATED APRIL 1, 1991 The parties agree that a properly executed withdrawal form was presented to a temporary assistant clerk in the caseflow office of the courthouse. Thereafter, that document was never filed with the clerk at his office and can not now be located. The question presented to us in the first instance is whether this case has been effectively withdrawn. We do not think that the mere presentation of this particular form to a court official is sufficient to constitute legally a filing. Guss v. Guss, 1 Conn. App. 356 CT Page 5475 359 (1984): Connecticut Practice Book 127. Under our rules of practice, when the court, as here, is not in session, we think that the filing of documents takes place only with the clerk at his designated office. See generally 76 C.J.S. Records 4 and 7.

Since we hold that the action is not withdrawn, we deem this motion to be moot.¹

/s/ William Patrick Murray, J. WILLIAM PATRICK MURRAY A Judge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marino-v-harris-no-091607-jun-18-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack