Megura v. Fredericks, No. Cv90 03 13 45s (Sep. 17, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8718
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedSeptember 17, 1992
DocketNo. CV90 03 13 45S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8718 (Megura v. Fredericks, No. Cv90 03 13 45s (Sep. 17, 1992)) 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
Megura v. Fredericks, No. Cv90 03 13 45s (Sep. 17, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8718 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT After pleadings have been closed, a Motion for Summary Judgment is a proper way to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Boucher Agency, Inc. v. Zimmer, 106 Conn. 404, 409.

Defendant's motion is granted and the clerk is ordered to enter that order unless the plaintiff moves to amend the complaint in separate counts setting forth factual allegations to respectively support the plaintiff's claims of negligent and reckless conduct on the part of the defendant by October 6, 1992.

Flynn, J.

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

Related

Gigleo v. Dorfman and Kimiavsky
138 A. 448 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 8718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/megura-v-fredericks-no-cv90-03-13-45s-sep-17-1992-connsuperct-1992.