Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Har v. Boreikogreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., Har v. Boreiko, 118 Conn. App. 787, 795, 986 A.2d 1072 (2010) (to prevail in quiet title action plaintiff must prevail on strength of her own title). 2026See, e.g., Har v. Boreiko, 118 Conn. App. 787, 795, 986 A.2d 1072 (2010) (to prevail in quiet title action plaintiff must prevail on strength of her own title). | 1 | 1 |
Hickey v. Slatterygreen2 sentences2006This is because “[w]here two distinct causes of action arise from the same wrong, each is controlled by the statute of limitations appropriate to it.” Perzanowski v. New Britain, 183 Conn. 504, 506 , 440 A.2d 763 (1981); Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719-20 , 131 A. 558 (1926) (“two distinct causes of action may arise out of one delict, and where that occurs, each is governed by the statute of limitations appropriate to it”), overruled in part on other grounds by, Tuohey v. Martinjak, 119 Conn. 500, 507 , 177 A. 721 (1935), and Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 259- 2006This is because “[w]here two distinct causes of action arise from the same wrong, each is controlled by the statute of limitations appropriate to it.” Perzanowski v. New Britain, 183 Conn. 504, 506 , 440 A.2d 763 (1981); Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719-20 , 131 A. 558 (1926) (“two distinct causes of action may arise out of one delict, and where that occurs, each is governed by the statute of limitations appropriate to it”), overruled in part on other grounds by, Tuohey v. Martinjak, 119 Conn. 500, 507 , 177 A. 721 (1935), and Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 259- | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simonds v. Shaw
green
2 sentences2025In disposing of the defendants’ quiet title claim, the trial court cited to Simonds v. Shaw, 44 Conn. App. 683 , 691 A.2d 1102 (1997). 2025In disposing of the defendants’ quiet title claim, the trial court cited to Simonds v. Shaw, 44 Conn. App. 683 , 691 A.2d 1102 (1997). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni
green
1 sentence2020Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni, 155 Conn. 287, 293 , 231 A.2d 276 (1967). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ives v. Burgess
green
1 sentence2020Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni, 155 Conn. 287, 293 , 231 A.2d 276 (1967). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Tuohey v. Martinjak
green
2 sentences2006This is because “[w]here two distinct causes of action arise from the same wrong, each is controlled by the statute of limitations appropriate to it.” Perzanowski v. New Britain, 183 Conn. 504, 506 , 440 A.2d 763 (1981); Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719-20 , 131 A. 558 (1926) (“two distinct causes of action may arise out of one delict, and where that occurs, each is governed by the statute of limitations appropriate to it”), overruled in part on other grounds by, Tuohey v. Martinjak, 119 Conn. 500, 507 , 177 A. 721 (1935), and Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 259- 2006This is because “[w]here two distinct causes of action arise from the same wrong, each is controlled by the statute of limitations appropriate to it.” Perzanowski v. New Britain, 183 Conn. 504, 506 , 440 A.2d 763 (1981); Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719-20 , 131 A. 558 (1926) (“two distinct causes of action may arise out of one delict, and where that occurs, each is governed by the statute of limitations appropriate to it”), overruled in part on other grounds by, Tuohey v. Martinjak, 119 Conn. 500, 507 , 177 A. 721 (1935), and Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 259- | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2006This is because “[w]here two distinct causes of action arise from the same wrong, each is controlled by the statute of limitations appropriate to it.” Perzanowski v. New Britain, 183 Conn. 504, 506 , 440 A.2d 763 (1981); Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719-20 , 131 A. 558 (1926) (“two distinct causes of action may arise out of one delict, and where that occurs, each is governed by the statute of limitations appropriate to it”), overruled in part on other grounds by, Tuohey v. Martinjak, 119 Conn. 500, 507 , 177 A. 721 (1935), and Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 259- 2006This is because “[w]here two distinct causes of action arise from the same wrong, each is controlled by the statute of limitations appropriate to it.” Perzanowski v. New Britain, 183 Conn. 504, 506 , 440 A.2d 763 (1981); Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719-20 , 131 A. 558 (1926) (“two distinct causes of action may arise out of one delict, and where that occurs, each is governed by the statute of limitations appropriate to it”), overruled in part on other grounds by, Tuohey v. Martinjak, 119 Conn. 500, 507 , 177 A. 721 (1935), and Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 259- | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Perzanowski v. City of New Britain
green
2 sentences2006This is because “[w]here two distinct causes of action arise from the same wrong, each is controlled by the statute of limitations appropriate to it.” Perzanowski v. New Britain, 183 Conn. 504, 506 , 440 A.2d 763 (1981); Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719-20 , 131 A. 558 (1926) (“two distinct causes of action may arise out of one delict, and where that occurs, each is governed by the statute of limitations appropriate to it”), overruled in part on other grounds by, Tuohey v. Martinjak, 119 Conn. 500, 507 , 177 A. 721 (1935), and Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 259- 2006This is because “[w]here two distinct causes of action arise from the same wrong, each is controlled by the statute of limitations appropriate to it.” Perzanowski v. New Britain, 183 Conn. 504, 506 , 440 A.2d 763 (1981); Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719-20 , 131 A. 558 (1926) (“two distinct causes of action may arise out of one delict, and where that occurs, each is governed by the statute of limitations appropriate to it”), overruled in part on other grounds by, Tuohey v. Martinjak, 119 Conn. 500, 507 , 177 A. 721 (1935), and Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 259- | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ferryman v. City of Groton
green
1 sentence1997The allegations are entitled to the same favorable construction as a trier would be required to give in admitting evidence under them . . . and if facts provable under the allegations would support a defense or cause of action, the [motion to strike] must fail." Ferryman v. Groton, 212 Conn. 138 , 142 (1989). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.