Sessions v. Sachs

254 A.2d 573, 157 Conn. 600
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided January 9, 1969·Published

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The court properly sustained the demurrer to the plaintiff’s prayers for relief. Practice Book § 108; Holley v. McDonald, 154 Conn. 228, 233, 224 A.2d 727; State ex rel. Scala v. Airport Commission, 154 Conn. 168, 176, 224 A.2d 236; Boyko v. Weiss, 147 Conn. 183, 186, 158 A.2d 253; Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Somers, 146 Conn. 708, 713, 156 A.2d 146. It is not necessary to consider the court’s action granting the defendants’ motion to expunge an amendment to the complaint since a first notice of dismissal, dated February 15, 1967, was rescinded, and the plaintiff concedes that he took no appeal from the notice of dismissal dated March 7, 1967.

There is no error.

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

Sessions v. Sachs, 254 A.2d 573, 157 Conn. 600 (Colo. 1969).

254 A.2d 573 (Sessions v. Sachs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boyko v. Weiss
158 A.2d 253 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1960)
State Ex Rel. Scala v. Airport Commission
224 A.2d 236 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1966)
Holley v. McDonald
224 A.2d 727 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1966)
Glens Falls Insurance v. Somers
156 A.2d 146 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1959)