Migliore v. Merritt Medical, No. Cv93 030 89 57 (May 5, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Migliore v. Merritt Medical, No. Cv93 030 89 57 (May 5, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 4918

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 5, 1994

DocketNo. CV93 030 89 57

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 4918 (Migliore v. Merritt Medical, No. Cv93 030 89 57 (May 5, 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

Migliore v. Merritt Medical, No. Cv93 030 89 57 (May 5, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 4918 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] [MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT] The Motion for Summery Judgment is denied, without prejudice. Although Connecticut Practice Book § 379 now permits the filing of a motion for summary judgment at any time, it remains true that ordinarily a defense based on the statute of limitations must be properly pleaded prior to any determination of its validity by the court. [Forbes v. Ballaro], 31 Conn. App. 235 (1993); cf. [Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck Company], 144 Conn. 170 (1956).

While it is tempting to rule on the defendant's motion because it has been fully briefed and argued by both sides, the court is convinced that doing so in the absence of the proper procedures of pleading would put the cart before the horse. Accord, [Girard v. Weiss], 11 Conn. L. Rptr. 217 (1994).

PATTY JENKINS PITTMAN, JUDGE

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] [MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT] The Motion for Summery Judgment is denied, without prejudice. Although Connecticut Practice Book § 379 now permits the filing of a motion for summary judgment at any time, it remains true that ordinarily a defense based on the statute of limitations must be properly pleaded prior to any determination of its validity by the court. [Forbes v. Ballaro], 31 Conn. App. 235 (1993); cf. [Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck Company], 144 Conn. 170 (1956).

While it is tempting to rule on the defendant's motion because it has been fully briefed and argued by both sides, the court is convinced that doing so in the absence of the proper procedures of pleading would put the cart before the horse. Accord, [Girard v. Weiss], 11 Conn. L. Rptr. 217 (1994).

PATTY JENKINS PITTMAN, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 4918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/migliore-v-merritt-medical-no-cv93-030-89-57-may-5-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack