Francis v. State, No. Cv 99-0592673s (Jun. 8, 2000)
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff responded in a hearing before this Court that the state had fraudulently concealed the cause of action for a new trial and that that, thereby, tolled the statute of limitations. As a result, this Court appointed a special public defender to represent the plaintiff on this issue and gave the plaintiff a lengthy continuance until June 6, 2000, in which to produce evidence of fraudulent concealment. In the interim, the Court ordered the state to comply with the plaintiff's request for admissions, and the state did so comply by filing responses to the request for admissions on April 11, 2000.
At the hearing held on June 6, 2000, the plaintiff produced no evidence as to fraudulent concealment.
Accordingly, the Motion to Strike is granted, and the Court will consider a Motion for Judgment to be filed by the state in the event that the plaintiff does not plead over within the statutory time period.
Rittenband, JTR CT Page 6966
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.