Tuccio v. Zehrung
| Decision Date | 10 January 1973 |
| Citation | 319 A.2d 406,164 Conn. 231 |
| Parties | Jerry TUCCIO v. William J. ZEHRUNG et al. Jerry TUCCIO v. Charles W. TREAT et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Richard S. Weinstein, Norwalk, with whom, on the brief, was Bruce L. Lev, Norwalk, for appellant (plaintiff) in each case.
Terry C. Pellegrini, New Milford, for appellee (defendant town of New Milford) in each case.
Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.
Both appeals are from judgments of the Superior Court, and the sole error assigned in each appeal is the granting of the motion by the defendant town of New Milford to erase each case from the docket.
Practice Book § 94. "A motion to erase the case from the docket will be granted only when it clearly appears 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 pleaded, invokes the existing record and must be decided upon that alone. Fairfield Lumber & Supply Co. v. Herman, 139 Conn. 141, 144, 90 A.2d 884.' Brown v. Cato, 147 Conn. 418, 419, 162 A.2d 175.' Perrys, Inc. v. Waterbury Redevelopment Agency, 157 Conn. 122, 123, 249 A.2d 256. Every presumption which favors the jurisdiction of the court should be indulged. Fairfield Lumber & Supply Co. v. Herman, supra; Port Chester Electrical Construction Corporation v. Industrial Electrical Supply Co., 139 Conn. 16, 17, 89 A.2d 377; see also Barney v. Thompson, 159 Conn. 416, 420, 270 A.2d 554.
The records disclose no reason why ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New England Rehabilitation Hosp. of Hartford, Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care
...purposes. First, "[e]very presumption which favors the jurisdiction of the court should be indulged." Tuccio v. Zehrung, 164 Conn. 231, 232, 319 A.2d 406 (1973). Second, "standing is an examination of the parties, not the merits of the action." Manchester Environmental Coalition v. Stockton......
-
Carpenter v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Stonington
...While a motion to erase admits all well pleaded facts and must be decided upon the face of the record alone; Tuccio v. Zehrung, 164 Conn. 231, 232, 319 A.2d 406 (1973); Brown v. Cato, 147 Conn. 418, 419, 162 A.2d 175 (1960); a plea in abatement is the proper pleading when the ground of abat......
-
Demar v. Open Space and Conservation Com'n of Town of Rocky Hill
...Costle, 179 Conn. 415, 421 n. 3, 426 A.2d 1324 (1980); see Monroe v. Monroe, supra, 177 Conn. at 177, 413 A.2d 819; Tuccio v. Zehrung, 164 Conn. 231, 232, 319 A.2d 406 (1973). The source of a court's jurisdiction is "the constitutional and statutory provisions by which it is created." C.S.E......
-
Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Costle
...in this instance the well-established principle that every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged. Tuccio v. Zehrung, 164 Conn. 231, 232, 319 A.2d 406; Port Chester Electrical Construction Corporation v. Industrial Electrical Supply Co., 139 Conn. 16, 17, 89 A.2d 377; Stone v.......