Wakefield v. Avco Corporation, No. 375466 (Aug. 3, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Wakefield v. Avco Corporation, No. 375466 (Aug. 3, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 10634

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 3, 1999

DocketNo. 375466

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 10634 (Wakefield v. Avco Corporation, No. 375466 (Aug. 3, 1999)) 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

Wakefield v. Avco Corporation, No. 375466 (Aug. 3, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 10634 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER The rule is that "`the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law. . . . To satisfy his burden the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact. As the burden is on the movant, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent.' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly,180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 (1980)." Connecticut HousingFinance Authority v. John Fitch Court Ltd. Partnership,49 Conn. App. 142, 145-46, 713 A.2d 900, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 908 (1998). Having reviewed the materials submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment at some length, I cannot find that it is "quite clear" what the truth, in fact, is here. For this reason the motion for summary judgment must be denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. Levin, Judge of the 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

ORDER The rule is that "`the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law. . . . To satisfy his burden the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact. As the burden is on the movant, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent.' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) D.H.R. Construction Co. v. Donnelly,180 Conn. 430, 434, 429 A.2d 908 (1980)." Connecticut HousingFinance Authority v. John Fitch Court Ltd. Partnership,49 Conn. App. 142, 145-46, 713 A.2d 900, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 908 (1998). Having reviewed the materials submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment at some length, I cannot find that it is "quite clear" what the truth, in fact, is here. For this reason the motion for summary judgment must be denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. Levin, Judge of the Superior Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 10634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wakefield-v-avco-corporation-no-375466-aug-3-1999-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack