Legal Opinion

Narumanchi v. Mechanics Savings Bank, No. 434264 (Apr. 12, 2000)

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided April 12, 2000No. 434264Unpublished

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The defendant has moved to strike the plaintiffs' complaint. Because the plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and in apparent good faith, the court will eschew legal platitudes and speak colloquially.

The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint to state a legal claim for which the plaintiffs may obtain the relief they seek. In deciding whether the complaint is "legally sufficient," the court is limited to the facts alleged in the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Waters v. AutuoriSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  2. Dunham v. DunhamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
  3. Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  4. Santopietro v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  5. Burns v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994

4 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