Tucker v. Hartford Electric Light Co.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Tucker v. Hartford Electric Light Co.

539 A.2d 148, 13 Conn. App. 825, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 48, 1988 WL 23809

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 2, 1988

Docket5669

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 539 A.2d 148 (Tucker v. Hartford Electric Light Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tucker v. Hartford Electric Light Co., 539 A.2d 148, 13 Conn. App. 825, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 48, 1988 WL 23809 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff claims that the court erred (1) in granting summary judgment based on a defense which was not specially pleaded by the defendants, (2) by not finding that permission of the court is unnecessary to sue a court appointed receiver after the receivership has been terminated, (3) in finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff’s failure to obtain permission to sue the receiver, (4) in unconstitutionally denying the plaintiff access to the courts, and (5) in rendering summary judgment “on grounds in law and fact that are false.”

This case is controlled by our decision in Tucker v. American Ins. Co., 3 Conn. App. 397, 488 A.2d 1278, cert. denied, 196 Conn. 802, 492 A.2d 1239 (1985). “ ‘A receiver appointed by judicial authority cannot, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, be subjected to suit without the leave of the court whose officer he is, granted in the cause in which he was appointed.’ ” Id., 399, quoting Links v. Connecticut River Banking Co., 66 Conn. 277, 284, 33 A. 1003 (1895). The plaintiff’s failure to obtain permission of the court to sue the receiver is dispositive of this appeal.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff claims that the court erred (1) in granting summary judgment based on a defense which was not specially pleaded by the defendants, (2) by not finding that permission of the court is unnecessary to sue a court appointed receiver after the receivership has been terminated, (3) in finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff’s failure to obtain permission to sue the receiver, (4) in unconstitutionally denying the plaintiff access to the courts, and (5) in rendering summary judgment “on grounds in law and fact that are false.”

This case is controlled by our decision in Tucker v. American Ins. Co., 3 Conn. App. 397, 488 A.2d 1278, cert. denied, 196 Conn. 802, 492 A.2d 1239 (1985). “ ‘A receiver appointed by judicial authority cannot, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, be subjected to suit without the leave of the court whose officer he is, granted in the cause in which he was appointed.’ ” Id., 399, quoting Links v. Connecticut River Banking Co., 66 Conn. 277, 284, 33 A. 1003 (1895). The plaintiff’s failure to obtain permission of the court to sue the receiver is dispositive of this appeal.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 A.2d 148, 13 Conn. App. 825, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 48, 1988 WL 23809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-hartford-electric-light-co-connappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack