Good Humor Corp. v. Ricciuti

28 Citing cases

  1. Melfi v. Danbury

    70 Conn. App. 679 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 37 times
    In Melfi v. Danbury, 70 Conn. App. 679, 800 A.2d 582, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 922, 806 A.2d 1061 (2002), we addressed the issue of the failure to award nominal damages.

    I The plaintiffs first claim that the court improperly struck the first four counts of their amended complaint. The plaintiffs cannot prevail on such a claim because it is wholly foreclosed under our Supreme Court's holdings in Royce v. Westport, 183 Conn. 177, 439 A.2d 298 (1981), and Good Humor Corp. v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 273 A.2d 886 (1970). In Royce, our Supreme Court held that "[u]pon the sustaining of a demurrer the losing party may take one of two courses of action.

  2. P L Properties v. Schnip Development

    35 Conn. App. 46 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 46 times
    In P L Properties, Inc. v. Schnip Development Corp., supra, the defendant moved to strike two counts of the plaintiff's five count revised amended complaint, and the trial court granted the motion.

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Royce v. Westport, 183 Conn. 177, 178-79, 439 A.2d 298 (1981); Good Humor Corp. v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 135-36, 273 A.2d 886 (1970). "The choice is left to the plaintiff, but once he files an amended pleading the ruling on the [motion to strike] ceases to be an issue.

  3. Ross v. Forzani

    88 Conn. App. 365 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 9 times

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) P L Properties, Inc. v. Schnip Development Corp., 35 Conn. App. 46, 49, 643 A.2d 1302, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913, 648 A.2d 155 (1994); see also Royce v. Westport, 183 Conn. 177, 179, 439 A.2d 298 (1981); Good Humor Corp. v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 135, 273 A.2d 886 (1970). "It is well settled that [t]he voluntary filing of an amended complaint operates as a withdrawal of the prior complaint, and, thereafter, the earlier complaint, though remaining in the files and constituting part of the history of the case, can furnish no basis for a judgment, nor can any previous ruling on it be made a subject of appeal."

  4. St. Amand v. Kromish

    1998 Ct. Sup. 4111 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998)

    (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Royce v. Westport, supra , 183 Conn.; Good Humor Corp. v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 135-36, 273 A.2d 886 (1970). "The choice is left to the plaintiff, but once he files an amended pleading, the ruling on the [motion to strike] ceases to be an issue.

  5. Calnan v. Autuori

    1996 Ct. Sup. 6195 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1996)

    We recognize that ordinarily the filing of an amended pleading after a motion to strike has been granted, removes the original pleading from the case. See Good Humor Corporation v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 135, 273 A.2d 886 (1970). We decline to review the subsequent ruling in this case, for the reason that the amended counterclaim contained substantially the same allegations as those in the original counterclaim and should have been the subject of a request to revise; see Practice Book 147; and not a further motion to strike.

  6. Ambrosini v. Johnson Memorial Hosp., Inc.

    1996 Ct. Sup. 5416 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1996)

    Dr. Arbulu contends that the filing of the amended complaint operated as a matter of law as a withdrawal of her previous pleading. Therefore, he argues that the plaintiff cannot now reclaim a cause of action against him. Dr. Arbulu cites Good Humor Corp. v. Riccuiti, 160 Conn. 133, 273 A.2d 886 (1971), in support of his argument. In response, the plaintiff argues that she may amend her complaint under the provisions of Practice Book § 176 since defendant Arbulu did not move for judgment after the granting of the motion to strike.

  7. Parsons v. United Technologies Corp.

    243 Conn. 66 (Conn. 1997)   Cited 729 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in the employment context, the mere act of firing an employee, even if wrongfully motivated, does not transgress the bounds of socially tolerable behavior

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) P L Properties, Inc. v. Schnip Development Corp., 35 Conn. App. 46, 49, 643 A.2d 1302, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913, 648 A.2d 155 (1994); see also Royce v. Westport, 183 Conn. 177, 179, 439 A.2d 298 (1981); Good Humor Corp. v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 135, 273 A.2d 886 (1970). Therefore, by opting to replead his wrongful termination claim after it was struck from his fifth amended complaint, rather than pursuing his reserved appeal, the plaintiff abandoned his right to claim that the specific allegations in the fifth amended complaint were, in fact, sufficient to support a wrongful termination claim.

  8. Heigl v. Board of Education of New Canaan

    218 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1991)   Cited 204 times
    Holding that the trial court properly granted a motion to strike on the basis of governmental immunity

    The defendant filed a cross appeal claiming that the plaintiffs' amended complaint was substantially similar to their original complaint and that therefore the trial court improperly sustained the plaintiffs' objection to their request to revise the amended complaint. See Royce v. Westport, 183 Conn. 177, 180-82, 439 A.2d 296 (1981); Good Humor Corporation v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 136-37, 273 A.2d 886 (1970); 1 E. Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure (2d Ed. 1982 Sup.) 113(d). Because we decide this case on the issue of governmental immunity, we do not address the merits of the cross appeal.

  9. People's Bank v. Horesco

    533 A.2d 850 (Conn. 1987)   Cited 40 times

    We recognize that ordinarily the filing of an amended pleading after a motion to strike has been granted, removes the original pleading from the case. See Good Humor Corporation v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 135, 273 A.2d 886 (1970). We decline to review the subsequent ruling in this case, for the reason that the amended counterclaim contained substantially the same allegations as those in the original counterclaim and should have been the subject of a request to revise; see Practice Book 147; and not a further motion to strike.

  10. Royce v. Westport

    183 Conn. 177 (Conn. 1981)   Cited 113 times
    In Royce, our Supreme Court held that "[u]pon the sustaining of a demurrer the losing party may take one of two courses of action.

    The plaintiffs had, however, in the meantime timely pleaded over after the sustaining of the demurrer by filing a substitute complaint on September 19, 1978. Practice Book 157. According to the Practice Book 158, this new September complaint became the controlling pleading and the earlier one was removed from the case. See Good Humor Corporation v. Ricciuti, 160 Conn. 133, 136, 273 A.2d 886 (1970). The new complaint was met with the defendant's request to revise, permitted by Practice Book 147 and on March 6, 1979, the trial court, Saden, J., granted the first of three alternative requests for "revision" by the defendant, deleting in its entirety the plaintiffs' substitute complaint of September 19, 1978.