Rivera v. Hankard

Connecticut Appellate Court

Rivera v. Hankard

198 A.2d 731, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 324, 1963 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 265

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedOctober 18, 1963

DocketFile No. CV 14-633-4001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 A.2d 731 (Rivera v. Hankard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rivera v. Hankard, 198 A.2d 731, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 324, 1963 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 265 (Colo. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the trial court, the defendant had filed a motion to expunge twelve of eighteen paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ complaint because they were “irrelevant, immaterial and evidential.” Prom a denial of the motion the defendant has appealed. The motion to dismiss is on two grounds: (1) The appeal was not taken timely, and (2) the action appealed from was not a final judgment. The motion [325]*325to expunge was decided on June 19, 1963, and the appeal taken on July 3. The appeal taken was within the period of two weeks limited by the rules. Cir. Ct. Rule 7.5.1; Lamberti v. Stamford, 131 Conn. 396, 398. A decision denying a motion to expunge is not a final action dispositive of all or part of the issues between the parties and may not be treated as a final judgment for purposes of appeal. See Cir. Ct. Rule 7.51.1; Practice Book, 1951, §§ 377, 380; Springfield-Dewitt Gardens, Inc. v. Wood, 143 Conn. 708, 709 n.

The motion to dismiss is granted on the second ground.

In this opinion Kosicki, Deaeington and Levine, Js., concurred.

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

Per Curiam.

In the trial court, the defendant had filed a motion to expunge twelve of eighteen paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ complaint because they were “irrelevant, immaterial and evidential.” Prom a denial of the motion the defendant has appealed. The motion to dismiss is on two grounds: (1) The appeal was not taken timely, and (2) the action appealed from was not a final judgment. The motion [325]*325to expunge was decided on June 19, 1963, and the appeal taken on July 3. The appeal taken was within the period of two weeks limited by the rules. Cir. Ct. Rule 7.5.1; Lamberti v. Stamford, 131 Conn. 396, 398. A decision denying a motion to expunge is not a final action dispositive of all or part of the issues between the parties and may not be treated as a final judgment for purposes of appeal. See Cir. Ct. Rule 7.51.1; Practice Book, 1951, §§ 377, 380; Springfield-Dewitt Gardens, Inc. v. Wood, 143 Conn. 708, 709 n.

The motion to dismiss is granted on the second ground.

In this opinion Kosicki, Deaeington and Levine, Js., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.2d 731, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 324, 1963 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-hankard-connappct-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack