Legal Opinion
Isidro v. State
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided April 3, 2001No. AC 19860PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SCHALLER, J.
The plaintiff, Miriam Isidro, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, the state of Connecticut, on the ground that the two year statute of limitations, General Statutes § 52-584,1 barred her negligence action. The plaintiffs sole claim is that the court improperly concluded that General Statutes § 52-5932 did not apply to save her *547action from the running of the two year statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of this appeal. This action arises…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Miller v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Gateway Co. v. DiNoiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Avon Meadow Condominium Ass'n v. Bank of Boston ConnecticutConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1999
- Vessichio v. HollenbeckConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Cogan v. Chase Manhattan Auto Financial Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
- Billerback v. CerminaraConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Kronberg v. PeacockConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Finkle v. CarrollConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.