Hart, Nininger & Campbell Associates v. Rogers
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBieluch, J.
I disagree with the majority opinion insofar as it finds that the trial court did not err in rendering a judgment upon default against the defendant Stephen L. Rogers. In its rush to judgment, the plaintiff misinterpreted the guiding statute, misconstrued the procedural rules, and led the court into a misjudgment.
On December 31, 1985, the plaintiff obtained a court order requiring the defendants to appear on January 27, 1986, to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue on its application and verified complaint. The order of service required that the defendants be served on or…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- McGaffin v. RobertsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Consolidated Motor Lines, Inc. v. M & M Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
- Automotive Twins, Inc. v. KleinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.