Legal Opinion

Rio v. Rio

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided February 29, 1960No. File 108514PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtBordon, J.

The plaintiff’s complaint and other pleadings were far from perfect and necessitated several amendments. It is bad practice to offer amendments just before and during the trial of a case. The court’s discretionary powers are severely taxed in such a situation. On the question of injuries, it appeared that after a disclosure had been filed by the plaintiff in which the extent of the injuries was narrated, it was found that the plaintiff required surgery and a back fusion not theretofore discovered. The plaintiff should have sought an amendment to the complaint more promptly. In any event, the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Boland v. VanderbiltSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
  2. L'Heureux v. HurleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  3. Freedman v. HurwitzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  4. Gibson v. HoppmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  5. Buol MacHine Co. v. BUCKENESSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Casey v. AtwaterConnecticut Superior Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API