Legal Opinion
Biro v. Hill
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 20, 1990No. 13734PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGlass, J.
This appeal principally concerns the question of who constitutes a “necessary party” under Practice Book § 152 (3).1 Specifically, the plaintiffs, Steven G. M. Biro and his wife Safiye Guzin Altiok, appeal from a final judgment of the Superior Court, rendered March 27, 1989, striking the five counts of their amended complaint and dismissing their action due to their failure to join a “necessary party” pursuant to Practice Book § 152 (3). We find error.
“Where an appeal is taken from a judgment following the granting of a motion to strike, we take the facts to be those alleged in the amended…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Shields v. BarrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- Amodio v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Sturman v. SochaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Sparrow v. BromageSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Skuzinski v. Bouchard Fuels, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Babes v. BennettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Biro v. HillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- In re Devon B.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- Goytizolo v. MooreConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.