Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 926 — Statute of Limitations
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577f (2026)

Limitation of action for damages caused by malicious prosecution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 52-577, no action to recover damages for malicious prosecution may be brought later than three years from the date of the termination of the criminal proceeding that is the subject of such action.

(P.A. 21-104, S. 60.)

History: P.A. 21-104 effective July 1, 2021, and applicable to any cause of action arising from a criminal proceeding terminating prior to, on or after said date.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Secs. 52-577g to 52-577o. Reserved for future use.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2024–2024 · leading case: Sakon v. Johnson (D. Conn. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sakon v. Johnson (D. Conn. 2024). · cites it 8× “Phillips is no longer good law because of the enactment of Connecticut General Statutes § 52-577f. However, the analysis in Spak is based on the fact that Connecticut courts have determined that the erasure provision in § 54-242a(c)(1) is a purely administrative matter, and…”
Sakon v. Johnson (D. Conn. 2024). · cites it 4× “However, the analysis in Spak is based on the fact that Connecticut courts have determined that the erasure provision in § 54-142a(c)(1) is a purely administrative matter, and nothing in § 52-577f undermines that holding by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Winer.”
Sakon v. Johnson (D. Conn. 2024). · cites it 4× “However, the analysis in Spak is based on the fact that Connecticut courts have determined that the erasure provision in § 54-142a(c)(1) is a purely administrative matter, and nothing in § 52-577f undermines that holding by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Winer.”
Sakon v. Johnson (D. Conn. 2024). · cites it 4× “However, the analysis in Spak is based on the fact that Connecticut courts have determined that the erasure provision in § 54-142a(c)(1) is a purely administrative matter, and nothing in § 52-577f undermines that holding by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Winer.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.