Town of Southington v. East. Bldg. Sys., No. Cv 94 070 51 28 (Aug. 19, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Town of Southington v. East. Bldg. Sys., No. Cv 94 070 51 28 (Aug. 19, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8313

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 19, 1994

DocketNo. CV 94 070 51 28

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8313 (Town of Southington v. East. Bldg. Sys., No. Cv 94 070 51 28 (Aug. 19, 1994)) 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

Town of Southington v. East. Bldg. Sys., No. Cv 94 070 51 28 (Aug. 19, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8313 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATIONFOR INJUNCTION In reading the two cases of White v. Kampner, 31 Conn. App. 73 and 229 Conn. 465 together with Welch Group, Inc. v.Creative Drywall, Inc., 215 Conn. 464 and New Britain v.Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration,178 Conn. 559 it appears that in our situation the question of arbitrability is to be decided by the court unless the parties have waived that requirement and agreed that it may be decided by the arbitrator. It would also appear that the question of whether waiver has occurred should be for the court as well. This issue has not been argued nor has the court any evidence of it.

A hearing in regard to any possible waiver must be had. CT Page 8314

Order: Simultaneous briefs shall be filed by September 7, 1994 and the court will assign a hearing date thereafter.

N. O'Neill, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATIONFOR INJUNCTION In reading the two cases of White v. Kampner, 31 Conn. App. 73 and 229 Conn. 465 together with Welch Group, Inc. v.Creative Drywall, Inc., 215 Conn. 464 and New Britain v.Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration,178 Conn. 559 it appears that in our situation the question of arbitrability is to be decided by the court unless the parties have waived that requirement and agreed that it may be decided by the arbitrator. It would also appear that the question of whether waiver has occurred should be for the court as well. This issue has not been argued nor has the court any evidence of it.

A hearing in regard to any possible waiver must be had. CT Page 8314

Order: Simultaneous briefs shall be filed by September 7, 1994 and the court will assign a hearing date thereafter.

N. O'Neill, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-southington-v-east-bldg-sys-no-cv-94-070-51-28-aug-19-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

N. O'Neill, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack