Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Housing Authority of New Haven v. Martin, 898 A.2d 245 (2006)

Citation
Housing Authority of New Haven v. Martin, 898 A.2d 245 (2006)
Parent Document
Housing Authority of New Haven v. Martin, 898 A.2d 245 (2006)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2006-06-06

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text

963 chars
pleading and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court, our review ... is plenary. . . . We take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint that has been stricken and we construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency. . . . Thus, [i]f facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied. . . . Moreover, we note that [w]hat is necessarily implied [in an allegation] need not be expressly alleged. . . . It is fundamental that in determining the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a defendant’s motion to strike, all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations are taken as admitted. . . . Indeed, pleadings must be construed broadly and realistically, rather than narrowly and technically.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Doe v. Yale University, 252 Conn. 641, 667, 748 A.2d 834 (2000).