Legal Opinion
Pozzi v. Harney
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided March 7, 1963No. File 127393PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKlau, J.
The defendants move to strike and dismiss this action on the ground that no service of any kind was made upon them and no service was made at the defendants’ usual place of abode. The plaintiffs claim that service was made at the usual place of abode of the defendants. A hearing on this issue was held and testimony offered by the parties.
The following facts are found: The return of the deputy sheriff Cwikla, as appears on the writ, states that on October 16, 1961, he left a true and attested copy of the writ at the usual place of abode of each of the defendants. On October 16, 1961, and for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- Clegg v. BishopSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Clover v. UrbanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Cugno v. KaelinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Dorus v. LyonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fine Homebuilders, Inc. v. PerroneConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Tsukroff v. Fordham, No. Sph 87791 (Sep. 13, 1996)Connecticut Superior Court · 1996
- Brodax v. Surgitek, Inc., No. 0299382 (Jan. 20, 1995)Connecticut Superior Court · 1995
- Evans v. Evans, No. 6631 (Nov. 12, 1992)Connecticut Superior Court · 1992
- Fine Homebuilders, Inc. v. PerroneConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.