Rivera v. Paulk, No. Cv97 034 59 73 (June 17, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Rivera v. Paulk, No. Cv97 034 59 73 (June 17, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 6965

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 17, 1998

DocketNo. CV97 034 59 73

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 6965 (Rivera v. Paulk, No. Cv97 034 59 73 (June 17, 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

Rivera v. Paulk, No. Cv97 034 59 73 (June 17, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 6965 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (#109) 1) Denied. This ground is based entirely upon facts which are not alleged in either the complaint or the special defenses. The court is limited to the face of the pleadings and may not consider assertions of fact not contained in the pleadings. Ryanv. Knights of Columbus, 82 Conn. 91 (1909).

2) Denied: The plaintiff mischaracterizes this special defense. Additionally, same grounds as number 1.

3) Denied. The defense of justification applies in a civil action.

4) Denied. The defense that the defendant was caused to act while under duress is a recognized defense to an intentional tort.

5) Denied. The defense of self defense is a recognized defense to an assault. Prosser on Torts, pp. 128, 129.

Insofar as each of the grounds relies on an alleged guilty plea they rely on a fact not pled and are not appropriate for a motion to strike.

MOTTOLESE, JUDGE

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