Tri-State Fairs New England v. Barlow, No. Cv 980577545 (Jul. 14, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Tri-State Fairs New England v. Barlow, No. Cv 980577545 (Jul. 14, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8509

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 14, 1998

DocketNo. CV 980577545

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8509 (Tri-State Fairs New England v. Barlow, No. Cv 980577545 (Jul. 14, 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

Tri-State Fairs New England v. Barlow, No. Cv 980577545 (Jul. 14, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8509 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant moves to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that service was defective, and that the plaintiff's amendment to cure the defect in the complaint was improper.

The plaintiff filed a writ with a proper return date accompanied by a complaint with a different return date. General Statutes § 52-45a provides in relevant part that the writ of summons should describe, inter alia, "the court to which it is returnable, the return day and the date and place for the filing of an appearance." The statute does not require the complaint to contain this same information. Finding that the writ of summons contains the correct return date, the mistake of the return date in the complaint does not nullify the plaintiff's compliance with General Statutes § 52-45a. PNC Mortgage Corp.of America v. McGee, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 315064 (November 7, 1994, Hauser, J.) (12 Conn. L. Rptr. 673); Bowes v. Wilborn, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 345627 (October 14, 1993, Hodgson, J.) (10 Conn. L. Rptr. 242).

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction is denied.

John J. Langenbach Judge, Superior Court

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 The defendant moves to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that service was defective, and that the plaintiff's amendment to cure the defect in the complaint was improper.

The plaintiff filed a writ with a proper return date accompanied by a complaint with a different return date. General Statutes § 52-45a provides in relevant part that the writ of summons should describe, inter alia, "the court to which it is returnable, the return day and the date and place for the filing of an appearance." The statute does not require the complaint to contain this same information. Finding that the writ of summons contains the correct return date, the mistake of the return date in the complaint does not nullify the plaintiff's compliance with General Statutes § 52-45a. PNC Mortgage Corp.of America v. McGee, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 315064 (November 7, 1994, Hauser, J.) (12 Conn. L. Rptr. 673); Bowes v. Wilborn, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 345627 (October 14, 1993, Hodgson, J.) (10 Conn. L. Rptr. 242).

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction is denied.

John J. Langenbach Judge, Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-state-fairs-new-england-v-barlow-no-cv-980577545-jul-14-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack