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

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 16, 1998

DocketNo. 388334

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15257 (Tolchin v. Shell Oil Company, No. 388334 (Dec. 16, 1998)) 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

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

Pincite

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tolchin-v-shell-oil-company-no-388334-dec-16-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack