Perrys, Inc. v. Waterbury Redevelopment Agency
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtHouse, J.
This appeal is from a judgment of the Superior Court, and the sole error assigned is the granting of the motion by the named defendant to erase the case from the docket. Our rules of practice clearly distinguish between pleas in abatement and motions to erase. 1 “A motion to erase the case from the docket will be granted only when it clearly ap pears on the face of the record that the court is without jurisdiction. Pearson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 141 Conn. 646, 648, 109 A.2d 260; Reilly v. Antonio Pepe Co., 108 Conn. 436, 443, 143 A. 568. A motion to erase admits all facts which are well…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Carten v. CartenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- Reilly v. Antonio Pepe Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Felletter v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
- Village Creek Homeowners Assn. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Barde v. Board of TrusteesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- East Side Civic Assn. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- Baskin's Appeal from ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
- Karp v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Tazza v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.