Pinto v. Phoenix Products, No. Cv96 0142005 (May 1, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Pinto v. Phoenix Products, No. Cv96 0142005 (May 1, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5700

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 1, 1998

DocketNo. CV96 0142005

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5700 (Pinto v. Phoenix Products, No. Cv96 0142005 (May 1, 1998)) 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

Pinto v. Phoenix Products, No. Cv96 0142005 (May 1, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5700 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#110) "The plaintiff's argument regarding the defendant's counterclaim would be valid in a compulsory counterclaim jurisdiction. . . . Connecticut, however, is a permissive counterclaim jurisdiction. See Practice Book § 116[, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 10-10]. In Connecticut, the fact that a defendant in a prior action did not assert a related cause of action in that prior case does not foreclose the defendant from asserting those claims in the future." Promotion Fulfillmentv. Foster, Morgan, Clark, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 153022 (May 13, 1997, Karazin, J.). see also Jeanson v. Lozier, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 529717 (January 22, 1998, Teller, J.) (21 Conn. L. Rptr. 332); Battista v. DeNegris, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 525774 (Sept. 16, 1994, Corradino, J.).

The defendant's motion (#110) for summary judgment is denied.

WILLIAM BURKE LEWIS, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#110) "The plaintiff's argument regarding the defendant's counterclaim would be valid in a compulsory counterclaim jurisdiction. . . . Connecticut, however, is a permissive counterclaim jurisdiction. See Practice Book § 116[, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 10-10]. In Connecticut, the fact that a defendant in a prior action did not assert a related cause of action in that prior case does not foreclose the defendant from asserting those claims in the future." Promotion Fulfillmentv. Foster, Morgan, Clark, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 153022 (May 13, 1997, Karazin, J.). see also Jeanson v. Lozier, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 529717 (January 22, 1998, Teller, J.) (21 Conn. L. Rptr. 332); Battista v. DeNegris, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 525774 (Sept. 16, 1994, Corradino, J.).

The defendant's motion (#110) for summary judgment is denied.

WILLIAM BURKE LEWIS, JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinto-v-phoenix-products-no-cv96-0142005-may-1-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack