Case ID: conn-app_4/html/0225-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Linden Shore District v. Carol C. Johnson et al.
    (3321)
    Hull, Borden and Spallone, Js.
    Argued May 9
    decision released June 11, 1985
    
      Carol C. Johnson, pro se, the appellant (named defendant).
    
      John E. Donegan, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Per Curiam.

We have reviewed the record and have closely examined the file and briefs in this case. We find nothing to substantiate the named defendant’s claims of error.

There is no error, but the case must be remanded with direction to modify the judgment by fixing new law days. 
      
       During the course of the appeal, we denied the plaintiffs motion to strike the brief of the named defendant, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to renew its motion at the time of oral argument. The plaintiff renewed its motion. We again deny it.