Legal Opinion
Doe v. Doe
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 5, 1972PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRyan, J.
The plaintiff in this case sought a writ of habeas corpus to determine the custody of two minor children. He later amended his petition to add a claim for visitation rights. The defendant moved to quash the petition, and the court granted the motion. From the judgment sustaining the motion to quash the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The motion to quash is equivalent to a demurrer. Adamsen v. Adamsen, 151 Conn. 172, 175, 195 A.2d 418; State ex rel. Foote v. Bartholomew, 103 Conn. 607, 611, 132 A. 30. Its function is to test the legal sufficiency of the allegations of the petition. On…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State Ex Rel. Foote v. BartholomewSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Kelsey v. GreenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- Dunham v. DunhamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
- Labella v. LabellaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Lozada v. Warden, State PrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- State v. AnonymousSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- McGaffin v. RobertsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- American Motors Corp. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
- Knock v. KnockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.