General
Richard Clark et al. v. Leo J. Mulcahy et al.
161 Conn. 595·Connecticut Supreme Court·1971·CT
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Richard Clark et al. v. Leo J. Mulcahy et al.
Fíalo G. Gnutti, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Bernard F. McGovern, Jr., assistant attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).
Argued October 5
decided October 5, 1971
[MAJORITY]
It appearing that the plaintiffs in the above-entitled ease have failed to prosecute their appeal from the Superior Court in Tolland County with proper diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed unless the appellants’ brief is field on or before November 15, 1971.