DocketNumber: File No. 290595
Citation Numbers: 479 A.2d 1249, 40 Conn. Super. Ct. 48, 40 Conn. Supp. 48
Judges: CORRIGAN, J.
Filed Date: 3/6/1984
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The defendant Raymond Wice has moved to strike the first count of the three count revised complaint in that the notice attached to the complaint is insufficient under the provisions of the dram shop act; General Statutes §
Although the count alleges wanton and reckless conduct in paragraph four, a recognized common law cause of action in the sale of liquor; Kowal v. Hofher,
The purpose of the notice required of the dram shop act is to enable a prospective defendant to begin marshalling his evidence while memories are still fresh.Zucker v. Vogt,
The motion to strike is therefore denied.
Lillian Zucker, Adm'x, Estate of Marvin Jerome Zucker v. ... , 329 F.2d 426 ( 1964 )
Fraser v. Henninger , 173 Conn. 52 ( 1977 )
Kowal v. Hofher , 181 Conn. 355 ( 1980 )
Pierce v. Albanese , 144 Conn. 241 ( 1957 )
Berube v. Lineberry, No. Cv 92-0451967s (Aug. 26, 1992) , 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 1061 ( 1992 )
Gionfriddo v. Sambor, No. 70477 (Dec. 20, 1993) , 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 11054 ( 1993 )
Estate of York v. Patti, No. 552518 (Jun. 15, 2000) , 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 7265 ( 2000 )
Benedict v. Gillette, No. 46849 (Oct. 1, 1991) , 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 8652 ( 1991 )