New Haven Redevelopment Agency v. Research Associates, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 October 1965 |
| Citation | 214 A.2d 375,153 Conn. 118 |
| Parties | NEW HAVEN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY v. RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Benjamin M. Chapnick, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
Richard G. Bell, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and HOUSE, JJ.
We have previously decided in Research Associates, Inc. v. New Haven Redevelopment Agency, 152 Conn. 137, 204 A.2d 833, one aspect of the controversy between these parties. The plaintiff in eminent domain proceedings took land and two tenement houses of the defendant and assessed damages at $37,900. Pursuant to § 8-130 of the General Statutes, this sum was deposited with the clerk of the Superior Court and paid over to the defendant on account of the just compensation to be awarded for the taking. The defendant applied to the Superior Court for a review of the assessment, and the matter was referred to a state referee pursuant to § 8-132. The referee concluded that $15,800 was just compensation for the taking. His report was accepted by the court, and judgment was rendered accordingly. From that judgment the defendant appealed, and on the appeal we found no error and held that the referee had authority to reduce the amount of the assessment. The plaintiff thereupon instituted the present action to recover the overpayment from the defendant.
After the pleadings were closed, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment, claiming that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact alleged in the complaint. The court, after a hearing on the motion, rendered judgment finding that there was no issue as to any material fact with respect to liability but that there was a genuine issue of fact as to damages. The judgment thereupon concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to damages and costs and ordered that the action be placed on the jury assignment list for the determination of damages. The defendant has appealed from this judgment.
The trial court obviously acted pursuant to § 304 of the Practice Book, which expressly provides: * * *'
Such a judgment, being interlocutory only, is not a final judgment from which an appeal lies to this court. General Statutes, § 52-263; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 10. This determination is in accord with the interpretation by the federal courts of Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which the first sentence of Practice Book § 304 was adopted. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of State of Pa.
...the federal rule. Plouffe v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 160 Conn. 482, 280 A.2d 359 (1971); New Haven Redevelopment Agency v. Research Associates, Inc., 153 Conn. 118, 214 A.2d 375 (1965). The mere theoretical existence of such a rule, however, does not mean that a court may apply it haphaz......
-
Town of Windsor v. Windsor Police Dept. Emp. Ass'n, Inc.
...Gas Transmission Co. v. Brush, 138 Conn. 370, 372, 84 A.2d 681; 30A Am.Jur., Judgments, § 121.' New Haven Redevelopment Agency v. Research Associates, Inc., 153 Conn. 118, 120, 214 A.2d 375, 377. Our conclusion that the General Assembly neither intended to nor did provide for a direct appea......
-
Connecticut Bank and Trust Co. v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
...of the liability issue, yet leave the issue of damages to be determined at a later hearing. New Haven Redevelopment Agency v. Research Associates, Inc., 153 Conn. 118, 120, 214 A.2d 375 (1965); see McColl v. Pataky, 160 Conn. 457, 462, 280 A.2d 146 (1971). Although we have never applied suc......
-
Sasso v. Aleshin
...Conn. 82, 495 A.2d 1063 (1985); Pinnix v. LaMorte, 182 Conn. 342, 343, 438 A.2d 102 (1980); New Haven Redevelopment Agency v. Research Associates, Inc., 153 Conn. 118, 120, 214 A.2d 375 (1965). Because the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss is not a final judgment, th......