statute is subject waiver in Connecticut

6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2002 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Moore v. McNamaragreen conn · 1986 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1987–1998 2 sentences 1998See Moore v. McNamara, 201 Conn. 16, 22-23 , 513 A.2d 660 (1986); Orticelli v. Powers, [supra, 197 Conn. 15 ]. ‘“A statute of limitations is generally considered to be procedural, especially where the statute contains only a limitation as to time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action. 1998See Moore v. McNamara, 201 Conn. 16, 22-23 , 513 A.2d 660 (1986); Orticelli v. Powers, [supra, 197 Conn. 15 ]. ‘“A statute of limitations is generally considered to be procedural, especially where the statute contains only a limitation as to time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action.	2	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
Ecker v. Town of West Hartford green conn · 1987 2 sentences 1999This holding was made by our Supreme Court in Ecker v. West Hartford , 205 Conn. 219 , 231-32 (1987): In deciding whether a time limitation contained within a statute is subject to waiver, we must determine whether the limitation is substantive or procedural in nature. . . . 1998Our Supreme Court has addressed this issue in Ecker v. West Hartford, 205 Conn. 219, 231-33 , 530 A.2d 1056 (1987): “In deciding whether a time limitation contained within a statute is subject to waiver, we must determine whether the limitation is substantive or procedural in nature.	5	1995–2002
Orticelli v. Powers green conn · 1985 2 sentences 1987See Moore v. McNamara, 201 Conn. 16, 22-23 , 513 A.2d 660 (1986); Orticelli v. Powers, 197 Conn. 9, 15 , 495 A.2d 1023 (1985). “ ‘A statute of limitations is generally considered to be procedural, especially where the statute contains only a limitation as to time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action. 1987See Moore v. McNamara, 201 Conn. 16, 22-23 , 513 A.2d 660 (1986); Orticelli v. Powers, 197 Conn. 9, 15 , 495 A.2d 1023 (1985). “ ‘A statute of limitations is generally considered to be procedural, especially where the statute contains only a limitation as to time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action.	1	1987–1987

Where else courts name it

CT 6 (1987–2002) IL 4 (1996–1998)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check