Legal Opinion

Hydro Air of Connecticut, Inc. v. Versa Technologies, Inc.

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided September 6, 1983No. Civ. No. N 81-145(WWE)PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RULING ON MOTION OF POWER DRAULICS-NIELSEN, INC. TO AMEND COUNTERCLAIM

EGINTON, District Judge.

In its initial answer, the defendant Power Draulics-Nielsen, Inc. (“PDN”) set forth a counterclaim alleging that the instant action was filed vexatiously by Hydro-Air of Connecticut, Inc. (“Hydro Air”). PDN now seeks to add two additional counterclaims. One of these new counterclaims, labelled the “Second Counterclaim” in the proposed amended answer, alleges that a related case filed in New Jersey was also vexatious. The remaining proposed counterclaim, la-belled the “Third Counterclaim” in the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Schaefer v. O. K. Tool Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  2. Sonnichsen v. StreeterConnecticut Appellate Court · 1967
  3. Paint Products Co. v. Minwax Co., Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1978

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kaltman-Glasel v. DooleyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2001
  2. Equality, Inc. v. I-Link CommunicationsDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1999
  3. Calfee v. UsmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  4. Pinsky v. DuncanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
  5. Pinsky v. DuncanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990

2 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