Wooster v. Hubbard

Connecticut Superior Court

Wooster v. Hubbard

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 219

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 19, 1940

DocketFile No. 58277

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 219 (Wooster v. Hubbard) 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

Wooster v. Hubbard, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 219 (Colo. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion is granted in the following respects because the matter referred to as it appears therein is evidential, only, viz., paragraphs 9, 15 and 16 (Cook vs.Packard Motor Car Co., 88 Conn. 590, 592); likewise, with respect to paragraph 20, which alleges elements of damage not allowable in such a cause of action as the complaint describes, to reach which defect a motion to expunge appears to be the proper procedure. Seidler vs. Burns, 84 Conn. 111, 113.

The reason for expunging paragraphs 9, 15 and 16, as noted

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

The motion is granted in the following respects because the matter referred to as it appears therein is evidential, only, viz., paragraphs 9, 15 and 16 (Cook vs.Packard Motor Car Co., 88 Conn. 590, 592); likewise, with respect to paragraph 20, which alleges elements of damage not allowable in such a cause of action as the complaint describes, to reach which defect a motion to expunge appears to be the proper procedure. Seidler vs. Burns, 84 Conn. 111, 113.

The reason for expunging paragraphs 9, 15 and 16, as noted

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooster-v-hubbard-connsuperct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack