Washington Row Pres. v. Rattlesnake Vent., No. Cv93 1029910 S (May 27, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

Washington Row Pres. v. Rattlesnake Vent., No. Cv93 1029910 S (May 27, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5535

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 27, 1994

DocketNo. CV93 1029910 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5535 (Washington Row Pres. v. Rattlesnake Vent., No. Cv93 1029910 S (May 27, 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

Washington Row Pres. v. Rattlesnake Vent., No. Cv93 1029910 S (May 27, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5535 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONRE: MOTION TO ARTICULATE This motion to articulate should be denied, as there is nothing to articulate. The defendant filed a motion to add another defendant pursuant to Practice Book § 103, but failed to annex an order to the motion as required by §§ 103 and 196. He now wants the court to tell him who needs to serve the third party defendant, in the form of an articulation.

A reading of the Tort Reform statutes suggest that for purposes of apportionment, a plaintiff should amend its complaint to add a new defendant. See Catalina v. Piccolo, 8 CSCR 70 (June 10, 1993), Sullivan, J.). However, a number of Superior Court judges do not like to force plaintiffs to amend their complaints and instead have the moving party (named defendant) serve the new defendant.

The parties should have attached an order telling who makes service. At this point, there is nothing to articulate. Accordingly, the motion to articulate is denied.

HICKEY, 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISIONRE: MOTION TO ARTICULATE This motion to articulate should be denied, as there is nothing to articulate. The defendant filed a motion to add another defendant pursuant to Practice Book § 103, but failed to annex an order to the motion as required by §§ 103 and 196. He now wants the court to tell him who needs to serve the third party defendant, in the form of an articulation.

A reading of the Tort Reform statutes suggest that for purposes of apportionment, a plaintiff should amend its complaint to add a new defendant. See Catalina v. Piccolo, 8 CSCR 70 (June 10, 1993), Sullivan, J.). However, a number of Superior Court judges do not like to force plaintiffs to amend their complaints and instead have the moving party (named defendant) serve the new defendant.

The parties should have attached an order telling who makes service. At this point, there is nothing to articulate. Accordingly, the motion to articulate is denied.

HICKEY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-row-pres-v-rattlesnake-vent-no-cv93-1029910-s-may-27-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack