Legal Opinion
Pelak v. Karpa
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 28, 1959PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKing, J.
The answer of the defendant admitted the allegations of the complaint, but in a special defense, the factual allegations of which were admitted in the reply, he claimed that as matter of law the court should have dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The determination of this claim is dispositive of the assignments of error in this appeal. Since there has been no intervening amendatory legislation affecting this case, for convenience all references to statutes, unless otherwise stated, will be to the Revision of 1958.
The plaintiff and her illegitimate child are, and continuously…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Artman v. ArtmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Fine v. WenckeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Hinman v. TaylorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817
- DickinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1875
- Copes v. MalacarneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Reed v. ReinckeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Doe v. DoeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Robertson v. ApuzzoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- State v. WolfeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Kuser v. OrkisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.