Sandvig v. A. Dubreuil & Sons, Inc., 851 A.2d 290 (Conn. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Sandvig v. A. Dubreuil & Sons, Inc., 851 A.2d 290 (Conn. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dimmock v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc. (conn, 2008-05-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see, e.g." Dimmock v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital, Inc. (4×)
Conn. · 2008 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Alswanger v. Smego, supra, 257 Conn. 61 (allegation of lack of informed consent regarding resident’s participation in surgery did not relate back to allegation that defendants had failed to disclose all material risks in connection with plaintiffs surgery, care and treatment), Sharp v. Mitchell, supra, 209 Conn. 73 (allegations of negligent construction and design of underground fuel storage area did not relate back to allegation that defendant was negligent in ordering employees to enter area), Keenan v. Yale New Haven Hospital, 167 Conn. 284, 285-86 , 355 A.2d 253 (1974) (allegatio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JUDY SANDVIG
v.
A. DUBREUIL AND SONS, INC.
SC 16781.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 13, 2004.
851 A.2d 290
Donald R. Beebe, for the appellants (plaintiffs)., Michael S. Burrell, for the appellee (named defendant).
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Judy Sandvig and Karl Sandvig, appeal, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of the named defendant, A. Dubreuil & Sons, Inc. Sandvig v. A. Dubreuil & Sons, Inc., 68 Conn. App. 79, 789 A.2d 1012 (2002). At issue is whether the plaintiffs’ negligence and contract claims against the named defendant are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See General Statutes § 52-584 (providing two year statute of limitations on negligence actions); General Statutes § 52-576 (providing six year statute of limitations on contract actions). We granted the plaintiffs’ petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) with respect to the plaintiffs’ negligence count, the relation back doctrine did not apply; (2) with respect to the plaintiffs’ contract count, the relation back doctrine did not apply; and (3) the statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs’ causes of action was not tolled by the named defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings?” Sandvig v. A. Dubreuil & Sons, Inc., 260 Conn. 931, 799 A.2d 296 (2002).

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[*92] be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.