Legal Opinion
Tayco Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 2, 2010No. SC 18319PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McLACHLAN, J.
Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-593a (a), 1 a cause of action is not lost because of the expiration of a statute of limitations if process is personally delivered to a state marshal who thereafter effectuates service within thirty days of its delivery. This appeal 2 requires us to determine whether an action can be saved pursuant to § 52-593a (a) when a party delivers the process to be served to a marshal within the applicable limitations period but then instructs the marshal to refrain from serving the process for several days. The defendant, the planning and zoning…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Beckenstein v. Potter & Carrier, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- State v. FERNANDO A.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Rocco v. GarrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Clegg v. BishopSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Lopa v. Brinker International, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- Department of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Doe v. Town of W. HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
- Hicks v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.