Legal Opinion
Ko Shu Mei Wu v. Chung-Ming Chang
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 10, 2003No. SC 16751PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PALMER, J.
The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether a claim of fraud tolls the thirty day period within which a motion to vacate an arbitration award must be filed pursuant to General Statutes § 52-420 (b).1 We conclude that the trial court properly determined that a claim of fraud does not toll that thirty day period and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. In 1990, the defendant, Chung-Ming Chang, and the plaintiffs, Ko Shu Mei Wu and Paul Yeh, established four Connecticut…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Garrity v. McCaskeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Pacelli Bros. Transportation, Inc. v. PacelliSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Town of Groton v. United Steelworkers of AmericaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Bennett v. MeaderSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Von Langendorff v. RiordanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. BoataSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Town of Bloomfield v. United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- City of Bridgeport v. Kasper Group, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assocs., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2019
- All Seasons Services, Inc. v. GuildnerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.