Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hart, Nininger & Campbell Associates v. Rogers

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided October 4, 1988No. 5436Published

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

  1. Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. McGaffin v. RobertsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
  4. Consolidated Motor Lines, Inc. v. M & M Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1941
  5. Automotive Twins, Inc. v. KleinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API