Legal Opinion

Ragali v. Holmes

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 9, 1930PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The motion to erase and that to dismiss are used in our practice somewhat interchangeably although the better practice is the use of the motion to erase. Galvin v. Burch, 98 Conn. 228, 232, 118 Atl. 826; Pettee v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co., 105 Conn. 595, 610, 136 Atl. 111. Such a motion if sustained, unlike the demurrer to a pleading is a final judgment. It will lie for want of jurisdiction which “appears plainly on the face of the record”; Norton v. Shore Line Electric Ry. Co., 84 Conn. 24, 31, 33, 78 Atl. 587; Reilly v. Pepe Co., 108 Conn. 436, 443, 143 Atl. 568, and cases cited; or…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Reilly v. Antonio Pepe Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  2. Norton v. Shore Line Electric Railway Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1911
  3. Murphy v. Elms HotelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  4. Bronson v. President of Mechanics BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
  5. Pettee v. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
  2. Felletter v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
  3. Heard v. HeardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  4. Varanelli v. LuddySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
  5. Kiessling v. KiesslingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948

24 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