DocketNumber: No. CV91 0290180 S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 2868
Judges: McGRATH, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/16/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In her motion the plaintiff seeks to prevent the defendant from offering into evidence testimony or reports regarding the plaintiff's prior or subsequent back injuries. The plaintiff argues that the prior and subsequent falls in which she hurt her lumbar spine are not relevant to this action in which she no longer claims lumbar spine injuries. In opposition the defendant argues that withdrawn pleadings are admissible against the pleader; the plaintiff's allegations of lumbar injury are admissions by the plaintiff; and that testimony and documentary evidence related to those allegations are also admissible.
"The motion in limine is not formally recognized by our statutes or rules of practice, and has generally been used in Connecticut courts to invoke a trial judge's inherent discretionary powers to control proceedings, exclude evidence, and prevent occurrences that might unnecessarily prejudice the right of any party to a fair trial." Richmond v. Long,
The defendant is correct in noting that superseded pleadings are available to the adverse party as an admission. Schenck v. Pelkey,
The defendant argues, without citing support for the proposition, that testimony and documentary evidence related to the allegations in the abandoned pleading are also admissible under the rule allowing use of abandoned pleadings. It is noted that the courts utilizing the rule have not so held. See Nichols, supra; Schenck, supra. It is clear that, at a minimum, such evidence must meet the requirement of relevancy to be admissible. State v. Joly,
The defendant's objection (motion #134) is overruled.
WILLIAM J. McGRATH, JUDGE