Legal Opinion

Walsh v. Laffen

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided October 18, 1944PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The plaintiff appellant, after a finding had been filed, did not file her assignments of error within the period allowed by § 341 of the Practice Book, but, instead, filed within that period a motion asking for an extension of time. The motion gives as the reason, that plaintiff’s counsel had engagements making it impossible to give attention to the matter for at least thirty days. The copy of this motion mailed to the trial judge for some reason did not reach him, and when, after the period allowed for filing the assignments had passed, it was brought to his attention, he denied the motion,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dunnett v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1900
  2. La Croix v. DonovanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Thomas v. ThomasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
  2. More v. UrbanoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API