Legal Opinion
Russell v. Thomas O'connor & Co.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided July 30, 1996No. 14714PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchaller, J.
The plaintiffs, Arthur Russell and Jeanne Russell, appeal from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment against them. They claim that the trial court improperly concluded that their complaint was not filed within the one year time period of General Statutes § 52-593. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are undisputed. In 1989, the plaintiffs commenced an action against Natkin & Company (Natkin) for personal injuries sustained by the named plaintiff in the course of his employment at the Mid-Connecticut Resources Recovery Project.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bridgeport Bowl-O-Rama, Inc. v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Noethe v. NoetheConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- Habura v. KochanowiczConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Morelli v. Manpower, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1994
3Cited by5 opinions
- Henriquez v. AllegreConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Anderson v. City of New London, No. 541273 (Feb. 24, 2000)Connecticut Superior Court · 2000
- Golino v. Pereira, No. Cv 00 0802482 S (Nov. 5, 2001)Connecticut Superior Court · 2001
- Hall v. Bender, No. Cv01-0163428s (Jun. 29, 2001)Connecticut Superior Court · 2001
- Morales v. Medina, No. Cv99 0590718 (Nov. 2, 1999)Connecticut Superior Court · 1999