Connecticut Statutes

§ 52-593a — Action not lost where process served after expiration of limitation period.

Connecticut § 52-593a
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 52Civil Actions
Ch. 926Statute of Limitations

This text of Connecticut § 52-593a (Action not lost where process served after expiration of limitation period.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-593a (2026).

Text

(a)Except in the case of an appeal from an administrative agency governed by section 4-183, a cause or right of action shall not be lost because of the passage of the time limited by law within which the action may be brought, if the process to be served is personally delivered to a state marshal, constable or other proper officer within such time and the process is served, as provided by law, within thirty days of the delivery.
(b)In any such case, the officer making service shall endorse under oath on such officer's return the date of delivery of the process to such officer for service in accordance with this section.

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

Related

Converse v. General Motors Corp.
893 F.2d 513 (Second Circuit, 1990)
65 case citations
DiVerniero v. Murphy
635 F. Supp. 1531 (D. Connecticut, 1986)
9 case citations
Cocco v. Preferred Mutual Insurance
637 F. Supp. 94 (D. Connecticut, 1986)
5 case citations
Shadmar, Inc. v. Alter, No. Cv94 545269s (May 3, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4246 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
2 case citations
Brown v. Brookville Transport Ltd., No. 392820 (Jan. 4, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 413 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
1 case citations
Solberg v. Town of Oxford, No. Cv91 03 61 49 (Aug. 31, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 9868 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Pierce v. Town of North Canaan, No. Cv 950067137 (Sep. 21, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 10942 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Sandvig v. A. Dubreuil Sons, Inc., No. Cv-93-0104218s (Mar. 29, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 3622 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Atancio v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., No. Cv01 038 07 77 S (Oct. 29, 2001) Ct Page 14273
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14272 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Martidis v. Lombard Realty, No. Cv 97-0142374 (Jul. 30, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9160 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Fabiano v. Town of Wolcott, No. Cv97 0140495s (Sep. 8, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 9400 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Apicelli v. C.R. Klewin, Inc., No. X04 Cv 99 0118348s (Apr. 2, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 4170 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Gillum v. Yale University, No. 409666 (Dec. 23, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15090 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Ashton v. Ashton, No. Fa 94 0141527 (Oct. 27, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 12216 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Wylie v. City of New Haven, No. 318804 (Oct. 15, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10384 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)

Legislative History

(1967, P.A. 890; P.A. 82-160, S. 253; P.A. 88-317, S. 29, 107; P.A. 00-99, S. 116, 138, 154; P.A. 01-195, S. 66, 181; P.A. 03-224, S. 14; P.A. 10-36, S. 11; 10-178, S. 4.) History: P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators; P.A. 88-317 inserted “Except in the case of an appeal from an administrative agency governed by section 4-183,” at the beginning of Subsec. (a), effective July 1, 1989, and applicable to all agency proceedings commencing on or after that date; P.A. 00-99 replaced reference to officer with state marshal and deleted provision re personal delivery to sheriff in Subsec. (a) and made technical changes in Subsec. (b), effective December 1, 2000; P.A. 01-195 substituted “state marshal” for “officer” in Subsec. (b), effective July 11, 2001; P.A. 03-224 increased time period for service of process from 15 to 30 days in Subsec. (a) and made a technical change in Subsec. (b), effective July 2, 2003; P.A. 10-36 amended Subsec. (a) to replace “state marshal authorized to serve the process” with “state marshal, constable or other proper officer within such time” and amended Subsec. (b) to replace “state marshal” with “officer” and “state marshal's” with “officer's”, effective July 1, 2010; P.A. 10-178 made identical changes as P.A. 10-36. Cited. 170 C. 5; 191 C. 150; 214 C. 464. “Process to be served” must be delivered to marshal within applicable limitations period, and such delivery is not complete until marshal is given instruction to effectuate service. 294 C. 673. Endorsement requirement in Subsec. (b) is directory rather than mandatory, and Subsec. (a) embodies the substance of section. 328 C. 172. Subsec. (a): Successfully faxing process to the state marshal for service satisfies the personal delivery requirement and is consistent with the section's remedial purpose. 335 C. 138. Cited. 10 CA 14; 43 CA 397. Action commences on date that process was delivered to sheriff for service, if defendant is served within 15 days of delivery to the sheriff. 53 CA 725. Delivery by mail is not precluded under section, the purpose of which is to ensure that process is received on time by the officer, but the determinative standard under section is when the marshal receives the process, not when it is mailed. 136 CA 67. Action saved from dismissal because marshal had original summons and complaint in his possession the day before the statute of limitations expired and process was served within 30 days of delivery; failure of marshal to include date of delivery in the return was not a fatal jurisdictional defect. 154 CA 146. Section applies to civil actions and not probate appeals. 173 CA 788. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that process was “personally delivered” to state marshal when transmitted to marshal's office by fax machine. 174 CA 285; judgment reversed, see 335 C. 138. Section is not implicated in habeas actions because, in a habeas action, service of process does not occur until after a petition is filed in court for a preliminary review, the court determines that the petition pleads a nonfrivolous claim upon which relief can be granted and over which the court has jurisdiction, and the writ issues. 212 CA 628. Appeal to court from decision of administrative agency is cause of action within meaning of section. 33 CS 172. Service of process which came into hands of deputy sheriff by mail was personally delivered to him within meaning of section. Id., 677. Cited. 34 CS 565; 40 CS 299; 41 CS 425; 42 CS 187.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 52-593a, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/52-593a.