Connecticut Supreme Court. Photo: Wikicommons High Court Narrowly Interprets Savings Statute in 5-2 Decision
"I would join the majority opinion but for one stubborn fact, which is that lawyers for the defendant, Mary Moritz, entered an appearance on her behalf in the original action on July 3, 2018, eleven days before the expiration of the statute of limitations," Justice Steven D. Ecker wrote.
August 21, 2024 at 03:56 PM
4 minute read
Civil Appeals
What You Need to Know
- Paul Laiuppa, the plaintiff, brought a lawsuit against Mary Moritz due to a major motor vehicle collision between the two.
- The plaintiff filed a new action under Connecticut General Statutes §52-592. The trial court, appellate court and the high court agreed with the defendant.
The Connecticut Supreme Court narrowly construed the savings statute in a 5-2 decision. The plaintiff's attorneys say the interpretation could complicate the reliance on abode service.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2NYC Mayor Eric Adams Indicted on Public Corruption Allegations
- 3'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 4Conduct Board Urges 'Swift and Severe Punishment' for Phila. Judge's Facebook Posts
- 5What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
