Polesak v. Kasinak, No. Cv91 028 05 98 S (Nov. 22, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

Polesak v. Kasinak, No. Cv91 028 05 98 S (Nov. 22, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13221

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1995

DocketNo. CV91 028 05 98 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13221 (Polesak v. Kasinak, No. Cv91 028 05 98 S (Nov. 22, 1995)) 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

Polesak v. Kasinak, No. Cv91 028 05 98 S (Nov. 22, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13221 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ONMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. 123) The Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry no. 123) is denied. The intervening plaintiff complied with Connecticut General Statutes § 31-293. This statute provides a mechanism regarding notices of action and a set time frame (30 days) for the intervening plaintiff to preserve its rights otherwise "his right of action against the third person shall abate." The intervening plaintiff's rights are derivative of the underlying action. Here the underlying action has legal vitality thus the intervening plaintiff's cause of action has legal vitality. See also City ofHartford v. Corporate Janitorial, Inc., 11 Conn. L. Rptr., No. 2, 52 (March 21, 1994).

MORGAN, J.

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ONMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. 123) The Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry no. 123) is denied. The intervening plaintiff complied with Connecticut General Statutes § 31-293. This statute provides a mechanism regarding notices of action and a set time frame (30 days) for the intervening plaintiff to preserve its rights otherwise "his right of action against the third person shall abate." The intervening plaintiff's rights are derivative of the underlying action. Here the underlying action has legal vitality thus the intervening plaintiff's cause of action has legal vitality. See also City ofHartford v. Corporate Janitorial, Inc., 11 Conn. L. Rptr., No. 2, 52 (March 21, 1994).

MORGAN, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polesak-v-kasinak-no-cv91-028-05-98-s-nov-22-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack