Woodwaste v. Connecticut Mulch Dist., No. Cv-97-0567757-S (Aug. 15, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Woodwaste v. Connecticut Mulch Dist., No. Cv-97-0567757-S (Aug. 15, 1997)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3163, 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 268

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1997

DocketNo. CV-97-0567757-S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3163 (Woodwaste v. Connecticut Mulch Dist., No. Cv-97-0567757-S (Aug. 15, 1997)) 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

Woodwaste v. Connecticut Mulch Dist., No. Cv-97-0567757-S (Aug. 15, 1997), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3163, 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 268 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM FILED AUGUST 15, 1997 The defendant moves to dismiss claiming that the plaintiff is not authorized to transact business in the State of Connecticut and therefore is not permitted to maintain the present action. This is an action on a New York judgment. The statute relied upon, General Statutes Section 33-921, effective January 1, 1997, and its predecessor, General Statutes Section 33-412 are applicable only to a "foreign corporation transacting business in CT Page 3164 this state."

This defense must be raised by a special defense, alleging that the plaintiff did in fact transact business in this state. Thereafter the question must be resolved by "the complete factual circumstance of each case." See Peters Production, Inc. v.Dawson, 182 Conn. 526, 529 (1980); Eljam Mason Supply, Inc. v.Donnelly Brick Co., 152 Conn. 483, 485 (1965); Menley v. Mott'sSupermarket, 26 Supp. 435 (1966).

The claims of the defendant set forth herein and are not the purview of a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is denied.

SULLIVAN, L., 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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 FILED AUGUST 15, 1997 The defendant moves to dismiss claiming that the plaintiff is not authorized to transact business in the State of Connecticut and therefore is not permitted to maintain the present action. This is an action on a New York judgment. The statute relied upon, General Statutes Section 33-921, effective January 1, 1997, and its predecessor, General Statutes Section 33-412 are applicable only to a "foreign corporation transacting business in CT Page 3164 this state."

This defense must be raised by a special defense, alleging that the plaintiff did in fact transact business in this state. Thereafter the question must be resolved by "the complete factual circumstance of each case." See Peters Production, Inc. v.Dawson, 182 Conn. 526, 529 (1980); Eljam Mason Supply, Inc. v.Donnelly Brick Co., 152 Conn. 483, 485 (1965); Menley v. Mott'sSupermarket, 26 Supp. 435 (1966).

The claims of the defendant set forth herein and are not the purview of a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is denied.

SULLIVAN, L., J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3163, 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodwaste-v-connecticut-mulch-dist-no-cv-97-0567757-s-aug-15-1997-connsuperct-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack