Tolchin v. Shell Oil Company, No. 388334 (Dec. 16, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Tolchin v. Shell Oil Company, No. 388334 (Dec. 16, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15257

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided December 16, 1998·No. No. 388334·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER I have examined Public Act No. 98-140, § 6, which amended General Statutes § 52-577c, together with the legislative history of that Public Act.¹ Whether, in light of a change inthe statute; see Republic Ins. Co. v. Pat Dinardo Auto Sales,44 Conn. Sup. 207, 211-218, 678 A.2d 516 (1995), affirmed (per curiam), 41 Conn. App. 686, 677 A.2d 21 (1996); the substituted complaint is substantially different than the complaint ordered stricken by the court (O'Keefe, J.), within the rule of such cases as Parsons v. United Technologies Corporation,243 Conn. 66, 74, 700 A.2d 655 (1997); Royce v. Westport,183 Conn. 177, 179, 439 A.2d 298 (1981); Good Humor Corp. v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 135,273 A.2d 886 (1970); Hillyer v. Winsted,77 Conn. 304, 306, 59 A. 40 (1904); P LProperties, Inc. v. Schnip Development Corp., 35 Conn. App. 46,49, 643 A.2d 1302, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913,648 A.2d 155 (1994), and Nestor v. TravelersIndemnity Company, 41 Conn. App. 625, 627 n. 3,677 A.2d 475 (1996); ought not be determined on a request to revise. The objection to the request to revise, therefore, is sustained.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court CT Page 15258

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER I have examined Public Act No. 98-140, § 6, which amended General Statutes § 52-577c, together with the legislative history of that Public Act.¹ Whether, in light of a change inthe statute; see Republic Ins. Co. v. Pat Dinardo Auto Sales,44 Conn. Sup. 207, 211-218, 678 A.2d 516 (1995), affirmed (per curiam), 41 Conn. App. 686, 677 A.2d 21 (1996); the substituted complaint is substantially different than the complaint ordered stricken by the court (O'Keefe, J.), within the rule of such cases as Parsons v. United Technologies Corporation,243 Conn. 66, 74, 700 A.2d 655 (1997); Royce v. Westport,183 Conn. 177, 179, 439 A.2d 298 (1981); Good Humor Corp. v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 135,273 A.2d 886 (1970); Hillyer v. Winsted,77 Conn. 304, 306, 59 A. 40 (1904); P LProperties, Inc. v. Schnip Development Corp., 35 Conn. App. 46,49, 643 A.2d 1302, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913,648 A.2d 155 (1994), and Nestor v. TravelersIndemnity Company, 41 Conn. App. 625, 627 n. 3,677 A.2d 475 (1996); ought not be determined on a request to revise. The objection to the request to revise, therefore, is sustained.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court CT Page 15258

Tolchin v. Shell Oil Company, No. 388334 (Dec. 16, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15257 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15257 (Tolchin v. Shell Oil Company, No. 388334 (Dec. 16, 1998)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related