Legal Opinion
Hatcher v. Bullard Co.
Connecticut Superior Court
Decided April 3, 1984No. File 210579PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBerdon, J.
Before the court is the named defendant’s motion to strike the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is under the Workers’ Compensation Act, General Statutes, c. 568, § 31-275 et seq., and that therefore this action is barred.
A function of the motion to strike is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Practice Book § 152. In testing the motion to strike, the court “must take the facts to be those alleged in the plaintiff s complaint . . . and must construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to the pleader.” Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1978
- Breen v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Hopson v. St. Mary's HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Johnson v. Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- Goodwin v. PrattConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Moore v. Environmental Construction Corp.Kentucky Supreme Court · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.