Reinhardt v. Wolf's New Process Abrasive Wheel, Inc.

Connecticut Superior Court

Reinhardt v. Wolf's New Process Abrasive Wheel, Inc.

13 Conn. Supp. 220, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 19

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 25, 1945

DocketFile No. 65793

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Conn. Supp. 220 (Reinhardt v. Wolf's New Process Abrasive Wheel, Inc.) 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

Reinhardt v. Wolf's New Process Abrasive Wheel, Inc., 13 Conn. Supp. 220, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 19 (Colo. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

WYNNE, J.

The plaintiffs saw fit to adopt the form of action that is in court. They allege that they are grievously injured by acts of the defendant. The defendant sought a more specific statement. While this was granted without plaintiffs’ attorney being present, he 'has been given the opportunity to argue in opposition. It still seems to the court that while the information sought is in a sense evidential, it may well present an issue on the claims plaintiffs must be presumed to have in [221]*221mind. The court can see no way in which the rights of the plaintiffs would be prejudiced in being compelled to give the information. If they have a grievance it can bear the light. The court adheres to its action in granting the motion on file.

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

WYNNE, J.

The plaintiffs saw fit to adopt the form of action that is in court. They allege that they are grievously injured by acts of the defendant. The defendant sought a more specific statement. While this was granted without plaintiffs’ attorney being present, he 'has been given the opportunity to argue in opposition. It still seems to the court that while the information sought is in a sense evidential, it may well present an issue on the claims plaintiffs must be presumed to have in [221]*221mind. The court can see no way in which the rights of the plaintiffs would be prejudiced in being compelled to give the information. If they have a grievance it can bear the light. The court adheres to its action in granting the motion on file.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Conn. Supp. 220, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reinhardt-v-wolfs-new-process-abrasive-wheel-inc-connsuperct-1945.