Somohano v. Somohano

Connecticut Appellate Court

Somohano v. Somohano

615 A.2d 181, 29 Conn. App. 392, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 390

Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided November 3, 1992·No. 11085·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

O’Connell, J.

This case arises from a Florida motor vehicle accident in which all the parties are Connecticut residents. The two year Connecticut statute of limitations¹ expired before this negligence action was commenced but prior to the expiration of the four year Florida statute of limitations.² The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Connecticut statute of limitations applied. The trial court was correct. The established law of this state is that the statute of limitations is procedural and, therefore, the law of the forum applies. Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 212 Conn. 509, 525, 562 A.2d 1100 (1989).

The plaintiffs urge us to overturn the established rule. This court will not reexamine or reevaluate Supreme Court precedent. Whether a Supreme Court holding [394]*394should be reevaluated in subsequent cases and possibly discarded is not for this court to decide. D’Arcy v. Shugrue, 5 Conn. App. 12, 29, 496 A.2d 967, cert. denied, 197 Conn. 817, 500 A.2d 1336 (1985).

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

O’Connell, J.

This case arises from a Florida motor vehicle accident in which all the parties are Connecticut residents. The two year Connecticut statute of limitations¹ expired before this negligence action was commenced but prior to the expiration of the four year Florida statute of limitations.² The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Connecticut statute of limitations applied. The trial court was correct. The established law of this state is that the statute of limitations is procedural and, therefore, the law of the forum applies. Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 212 Conn. 509, 525, 562 A.2d 1100 (1989).

The plaintiffs urge us to overturn the established rule. This court will not reexamine or reevaluate Supreme Court precedent. Whether a Supreme Court holding [394]*394should be reevaluated in subsequent cases and possibly discarded is not for this court to decide. D’Arcy v. Shugrue, 5 Conn. App. 12, 29, 496 A.2d 967, cert. denied, 197 Conn. 817, 500 A.2d 1336 (1985).

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Somohano v. Somohano, 615 A.2d 181, 29 Conn. App. 392, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 390 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

615 A.2d 181 (Somohano v. Somohano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related