Sadloski v. Town of Manchester, No. Cv-88-0342285 (Oct. 2, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Sadloski v. Town of Manchester, No. Cv-88-0342285 (Oct. 2, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 9144

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 2, 1992

DocketNo. CV-88-0342285

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 9144 (Sadloski v. Town of Manchester, No. Cv-88-0342285 (Oct. 2, 1992)) 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

Sadloski v. Town of Manchester, No. Cv-88-0342285 (Oct. 2, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 9144 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL After plaintiff presented her evidence and rested, the defendant moved for judgment of dismissal pursuant to Practice Book 302. The issue raised by the motion is whether the plaintiff proved sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case. In passing on the motion, the court must accept the evidence offered by the plaintiff as true, and interpret it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, CT Page 9145 with every reasonable inference being drawn in her favor. Cormier v. Fugere, 185 Conn. 1, 3, 440 A.2d 820 (1981). Judgment of dismissal is only proper, in applying the prima facie standard, when evidence produced by the plaintiff "`if fully believed'" would not permit the trier "in reason" to find essential issues on the complaint for the plaintiff. Falker v. Samperi, 190 Conn. 412, 418-19,461 A.2d 681 (1983). The plaintiff's evidence will be measured against "a relatively low standard" to successfully withstand a motion for judgment of dismissal. Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 184 Conn. 607, 620,440 A.2d 810 (1981).

Based on the foregoing, the court cannot say that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case. Therefore, the motion is denied.

By the Court

Aurigemma, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] RULING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL After plaintiff presented her evidence and rested, the defendant moved for judgment of dismissal pursuant to Practice Book 302. The issue raised by the motion is whether the plaintiff proved sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case. In passing on the motion, the court must accept the evidence offered by the plaintiff as true, and interpret it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, CT Page 9145 with every reasonable inference being drawn in her favor. Cormier v. Fugere, 185 Conn. 1, 3, 440 A.2d 820 (1981). Judgment of dismissal is only proper, in applying the prima facie standard, when evidence produced by the plaintiff "`if fully believed'" would not permit the trier "in reason" to find essential issues on the complaint for the plaintiff. Falker v. Samperi, 190 Conn. 412, 418-19,461 A.2d 681 (1983). The plaintiff's evidence will be measured against "a relatively low standard" to successfully withstand a motion for judgment of dismissal. Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 184 Conn. 607, 620,440 A.2d 810 (1981).

Based on the foregoing, the court cannot say that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case. Therefore, the motion is denied.

By the Court

Aurigemma, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 9144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadloski-v-town-of-manchester-no-cv-88-0342285-oct-2-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack