Case Name: Richard Clark et al. v. Leo J. Mulcahy et al.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1971-10-05
Citations: 161 Conn. 595
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard Clark et al. v. Leo J. Mulcahy et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 161
Pages: 595–595

Head Matter:
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

Opinion:
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.