Sagat v. Fab-Tech, Inc., No. Cv 96 072347 (May 13, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Sagat v. Fab-Tech, Inc., No. Cv 96 072347 (May 13, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 5690

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 13, 1997

DocketNo. CV 96 072347

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 5690 (Sagat v. Fab-Tech, Inc., No. Cv 96 072347 (May 13, 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

Sagat v. Fab-Tech, Inc., No. Cv 96 072347 (May 13, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 5690 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO DISMISS Motion to dismiss granted. "[A]n improperly specified return date affects the court's jurisdiction." Carlson v. Fischer,18 Conn. App. 488, 495, 558 A.2d 1029 (1989), citing HartfordNational Bank Trust Co. v. Tucker, 178 Conn. 472, 478-79,423 A.2d 1141 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904, 100 S.Ct. 1079,63 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980). "[T]he incorrect return date should not be viewed lightly." Id. "The defect of an improper return day is not a minor defect." Id.

The proper approach to correct an improper return date is to file an amendment of process pursuant to General Statutes §52-72. See Concept Associates, LTD v. Board of Tax Review,229 Conn. 618, 642 A.2d 1186 (1994). The plaintiff did not file an amendment pursuant to section 52-72. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

HON. WALTER M. PICKETT, JR., J. State Judge Referee

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO DISMISS Motion to dismiss granted. "[A]n improperly specified return date affects the court's jurisdiction." Carlson v. Fischer,18 Conn. App. 488, 495, 558 A.2d 1029 (1989), citing HartfordNational Bank Trust Co. v. Tucker, 178 Conn. 472, 478-79,423 A.2d 1141 (1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904, 100 S.Ct. 1079,63 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980). "[T]he incorrect return date should not be viewed lightly." Id. "The defect of an improper return day is not a minor defect." Id.

The proper approach to correct an improper return date is to file an amendment of process pursuant to General Statutes §52-72. See Concept Associates, LTD v. Board of Tax Review,229 Conn. 618, 642 A.2d 1186 (1994). The plaintiff did not file an amendment pursuant to section 52-72. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

HON. WALTER M. PICKETT, JR., J. State Judge Referee

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 5690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sagat-v-fab-tech-inc-no-cv-96-072347-may-13-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack