Somohano v. Somohano

Connecticut Appellate Court

Somohano v. Somohano

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

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedNovember 3, 1992

Docket11085

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 615 A.2d 181 (Somohano v. Somohano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 A.2d 181, 29 Conn. App. 392, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/somohano-v-somohano-connappct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack