Zweeres v. Pashalinsky

Connecticut Superior Court

Zweeres v. Pashalinsky

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 4

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 1939

DocketFile No. 55999

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 4 (Zweeres v. Pashalinsky) 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

Zweeres v. Pashalinsky, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 4 (Colo. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

A motion to strike out is an exclusive remedy and is designed to remove improper pleadings for any of the specific reasons found in section 61 of the Rules of Practice. The essential rights of the parties should not be determined on such a motion. Wilmot vs. McPadden, 78 Conn. 276. Also, by express provision of section 100 of the Rules of Practice the objection of misjoinder of causes of action must be by demurrer.

The motions of the defendants as made are, therefore, overruled.

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

A motion to strike out is an exclusive remedy and is designed to remove improper pleadings for any of the specific reasons found in section 61 of the Rules of Practice. The essential rights of the parties should not be determined on such a motion. Wilmot vs. McPadden, 78 Conn. 276. Also, by express provision of section 100 of the Rules of Practice the objection of misjoinder of causes of action must be by demurrer.

The motions of the defendants as made are, therefore, overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Conn. Super. Ct. 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zweeres-v-pashalinsky-connsuperct-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack