Home/Connecticut Superior Court/Rosenberg v. Meriden Housing Authority, No. Cv 95-0377376 (Dec. 31, 1997)

Rosenberg v. Meriden Housing Authority, No. Cv 95-0377376 (Dec. 31, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13986
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedDecember 31, 1997
DocketNo. CV 95-0377376
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13986 (Rosenberg v. Meriden Housing Authority, No. Cv 95-0377376 (Dec. 31, 1997)) 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
Rosenberg v. Meriden Housing Authority, No. Cv 95-0377376 (Dec. 31, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13986 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant filed a motion to strike all nine counts of the complaint. The court will deal with these in the order they appear in the complaint.

Count #1. The plaintiff did oppose the granting of the motion with regard to Count #1. It is therefore stricken.

Count #2. The motion to strike Count #2 is granted. The facts alleged in this count are not so extreme or outrageous to give rise to a legally sufficient claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress as required. Peyton v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243,254 (1983).

Count #3. The motion to strike is granted. The plaintiff has failed to allege facts that rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct in the manner in which it terminated the plaintiff. Morris v. Hartford Courant, 200 Conn. 681-683.

Count #4 is also stricken. The plaintiff has failed to allege facts from which a contract can be implied. Coelho v. Posi-SealInternational, Inc., 208 Conn. 112.

Count #5. The motion to strike is granted. All the elements of slander have not been alleged. The allegations do not describe any slanderous statement by the defendant, other elements of this cause of action are also absent. Kelly v. Bonney, 221 Conn. 549 (1993).

Count #6 and Count #7. The motion to strike is granted.

Count #8. The motion to strike is granted. The plaintiff must allege a nexus between his workers' compensation claim and his firing.

Count #9. This count is based on a stricken count and therefore must also be stricken.

Thomas V. O'Keefe, Jr., Judge CT Page 13988

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

Related

Petyan v. Ellis
510 A.2d 1337 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1986)
Morris v. Hartford Courant Co.
513 A.2d 66 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1986)
Coelho v. Posi-Seal International, Inc.
544 A.2d 170 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1988)
Kelley v. Bonney
606 A.2d 693 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 13986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-meriden-housing-authority-no-cv-95-0377376-dec-31-1997-connsuperct-1997.