Legal Opinion

Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 3, 1999PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The third party defendant Samuel Heyman’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 52 Conn. App. 136 (AC 16676), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly enforce the twenty day time limit of General Statutes § 52-102a for asserting a claim against an impleaded party?
“2. Did the Appellate Court properly hold that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow an untimely ‘assertion of claim’ to be ‘amended’ into a negligence complaint after the jury had been selected?”

CALLAHAN, C. J., and MCDONALD, J., did not…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1999

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Biller Associates v. Route 156 Realty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
  2. Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API