Legal Opinion
Kronberg v. Peacock
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided January 22, 2002No. AC 21813PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LANDAU, J.
The plaintiff, Alphonse Kronberg, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered after it granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Trini Peacock and Carol Galinis. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that the saving provisions of General Statutes § 52-5931 did not apply to the facts of this case and that the plaintiff’s cause of action was time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are not in dispute. On August 13, 1994, the plaintiff was…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Miller v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- D.H.R. Construction Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Gateway Co. v. DiNoiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Avon Meadow Condominium Ass'n v. Bank of Boston ConnecticutConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cogan v. Chase Manhattan Auto Financial Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Billerback v. CerminaraConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Pepitone v. SermanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Garcia v. ITT Hartford InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Finkle v. CarrollConnecticut Appellate Court · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.