Pike v. Bugbee, 980 A.2d 912 (Conn. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Pike v. Bugbee, 980 A.2d 912 (Conn. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
How cited ↗
Cited for
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“Although courts in equitable proceedings often look by analogy to the statute of limitations to determine whether, in the interests of justice, a particular action should be heard, they are by no means obliged to adhere to those time limitations.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
  • Carney v. Lopez, 933 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D. Conn. 2013).published
    “Although courts in equitable proceedings often look by analogy to the statute of limitations to determine whether, in the interests of justice, a particular action should be heard, they are by no means obliged to adher…”
  • Carney v. Horion Investments Ltd., 107 F. Supp. 3d 216 (D. Conn. 2015).published
    “Although courts in equitable proceedings often look by analogy to the statute of limitations to determine whether, in the interests of justice, a particular action should be heard, they are by no means obliged to adher…”
JORDAN PIKE
v.
BLAKE BUGBEE
SC 18456.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 23, 2009.
Published opinion
980 A.2d 912
2009 Conn. LEXIS 417
Juri E. Taalman, in support of the petition., Peter J. Ponziani and Christopher J. Sochacki, in opposition.
Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Citer courts: D. Connecticut (2)

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 115 Conn. App. 820 (AC 29552), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiffs claims in negligence?
“2. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to strike the claim of parental liability pursuant to General Statutes § 52-572?”
[*924] The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18456. Juri E. Taalman, in support of the petition. Peter J. Ponziani and Christopher J. Sochacki, in opposition. Decided September 23, 2009

PALMER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.