Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
734 A.2d 569, 248 Conn. 920, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 168
This text of 734 A.2d 569 (Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.) 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
Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 734 A.2d 569, 248 Conn. 920, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 168 (Colo. 1999).
Opinion
The third party defendant Samuel Heyman’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 52 Conn. App. 136 (AC 16676), is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Did the Appellate Court properly enforce the twenty day time limit of General Statutes § 52-102a for asserting a claim against an impleaded party?
“2. Did the Appellate Court properly hold that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow an untimely ‘assertion of claim’ to be ‘amended’ into a negligence complaint after the jury had been selected?”
CALLAHAN, C. J., and MCDONALD, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
759 A.2d 502 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2000)
Biller Associates v. Route 156 Realty Co.
746 A.2d 785 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2000)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
734 A.2d 569, 248 Conn. 920, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarzia-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-conn-1999.