Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

St. Paul's Flax Hill Co-Operative v. Johnson, 6 A.3d 1168 (2010)

Citation
St. Paul's Flax Hill Co-Operative v. Johnson, 6 A.3d 1168 (2010)
Parent Document
St. Paul's Flax Hill Co-Operative v. Johnson, 6 A.3d 1168 (2010)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2010-11-02

Other Sections in This Document (64)

Full Text

662 chars
We now identify the applicable standard of review. The defendant’s “motion to dismiss . . . properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court. ... A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction. . . . [0]ur review of the court’s ultimate legal conclusion and resulting [determination] of the motion to dismiss [is] de novo.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Waterbury Twin, LLC v. Renal Treatment Centers-Northeast, Inc., 292 Conn. 459, 466-67, 974 A.2d 626 (2009).