Stamm v. Metro North Commuter R.R., No. Cv89 0101860 S (Jul. 26, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Stamm v. Metro North Commuter R.R., No. Cv89 0101860 S (Jul. 26, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5903

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 26, 1991

DocketNo. CV89 0101860 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5903 (Stamm v. Metro North Commuter R.R., No. Cv89 0101860 S (Jul. 26, 1991)) 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

Stamm v. Metro North Commuter R.R., No. Cv89 0101860 S (Jul. 26, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5903 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Apparently, the applicability of the last sentence of C.P.B. 177 of summary judgment procedure has never been the subject to any reported decision. It is my belief that because of the uncertainty created by the use of the words "applicable CT Page 5904 as far as possible", better practice would indicate that for the purpose of summary judgment any doubt as to the applicability of the prior pleading ought to be resolved by requiring that an actual pleading be filed or that the parties to the motion file a written consent that the prior pleading be deemed applicable. We have recently been reminded of the absolute necessity of having the pleadings closed before a dispositive order is entered by the court. Marciano v. Piel, 22 Conn. App. 627.

MOTTOLESE, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Apparently, the applicability of the last sentence of C.P.B. 177 of summary judgment procedure has never been the subject to any reported decision. It is my belief that because of the uncertainty created by the use of the words "applicable CT Page 5904 as far as possible", better practice would indicate that for the purpose of summary judgment any doubt as to the applicability of the prior pleading ought to be resolved by requiring that an actual pleading be filed or that the parties to the motion file a written consent that the prior pleading be deemed applicable. We have recently been reminded of the absolute necessity of having the pleadings closed before a dispositive order is entered by the court. Marciano v. Piel, 22 Conn. App. 627.

MOTTOLESE, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 5903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stamm-v-metro-north-commuter-rr-no-cv89-0101860-s-jul-26-1991-connsuperct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack