Davis v. Family Dollar Store

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Davis v. Family Dollar Store

859 A.2d 25, 271 Conn. 655, 2004 Conn. LEXIS 461

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 2, 2004

DocketSC 17058

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 859 A.2d 25 (Davis v. Family Dollar Store) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Family Dollar Store, 859 A.2d 25, 271 Conn. 655, 2004 Conn. LEXIS 461 (Colo. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Marion Davis, appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court, which rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Family Dollar Store. The Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiffs action was time barred by General Statutes § 52-584¹ and that the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592,² did not save the action because the defendant had not been served with process within the limitations period and § 52-592 “[did] not authorize another action to be filed or to extend any statute of limitations.” Davis v. Family Dollar Store, 78 Conn. App. 235, 241, 826 A.2d 262 (2003). We granted the plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly determine that General [657]*657Statutes § 52-592 should not apply in cases such as the present action in which the plaintiff delivered the complaint in a timely manner to a sheriff, and, due to the sheriffs actions, default or negligence, the complaint was not served?” Davis v. Family Dollar Store, 266 Conn. 912, 832 A.2d 69 (2003).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Marion Davis, appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court, which rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Family Dollar Store. The Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiffs action was time barred by General Statutes § 52-584¹ and that the accidental failure of suit statute, General Statutes § 52-592,² did not save the action because the defendant had not been served with process within the limitations period and § 52-592 “[did] not authorize another action to be filed or to extend any statute of limitations.” Davis v. Family Dollar Store, 78 Conn. App. 235, 241, 826 A.2d 262 (2003). We granted the plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly determine that General [657]*657Statutes § 52-592 should not apply in cases such as the present action in which the plaintiff delivered the complaint in a timely manner to a sheriff, and, due to the sheriffs actions, default or negligence, the complaint was not served?” Davis v. Family Dollar Store, 266 Conn. 912, 832 A.2d 69 (2003).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

859 A.2d 25, 271 Conn. 655, 2004 Conn. LEXIS 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-family-dollar-store-conn-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack