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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-597 (2026)

Action for libel or slander

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No action for libel or slander shall be brought but within two years from the date of the act complained of.

(1951, S. 3233d.)

Cited. 214 C. 464.

Defamation count barred by section; federal prison mailbox rule not recognized. 154 CA 138.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: L. Cohen & Co., Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 1425 (D. Conn. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
L. Cohen & Co., Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 1425 (D. Conn. 1986). · cites it 24× “The defendant contends that count one of the complaint is time-barred under C.G.S. § 52-597, the statute of limitations applicable to defamation actions, because the plaintiff did not commence this suit “within two years from the date of the act complained of.”
Chamerda v. Opie, 197 A.3d 982 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 4× “The defendants argue that General Statutes § 52-597 14 or, in the alternative, General Statutes § 52-577 15 should apply to bar the plaintiff's action.”
Jensen v. Times Mirror Co., 634 F. Supp. 304 (D. Conn. 1986). · cites it 6× “Defendants claim these are barred by the statute of limitations, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-597, Connecticut’s two year limitations for libel and slander actions and because these amendments should not relate back to the earlier complaint.”
Gianetti v. Connecticut Newspapers Publ'g Co., 44 A.3d 191 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 52-597. 4 The period began when the article in question was published, June 20,2004, and ended two years later on June 20, 2006.”
Estela v. Bristol Hosp., Inc., 180 A.3d 595 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “On December 22, 2015, the plaintiff moved for judgment to be rendered in favor of the defendant, as the court's order on the motion to bifurcate so concluded the rights of the parties that further proceedings could not affect them. On January 4, 2016, the court rendered judgment…”
CSL Silicones, Inc. v. Midsun Grp. Inc., 301 F. Supp. 3d 328 (D. Conn. 2018). · cites it 2× “" Had Midsun brought a common law claim of defamation against CSL, any statement in the Sun West correspondence would also be time-barred, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-597 , which provides that "[n]o action for libel or slander shall be brought but within two years from the…”
Ravalese v. Lertora, 200 A.3d 1153 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 6× “inion, that they are absolutely privileged because they were published in connection with judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, that they were published in good faith, with the health and welfare of a child in mind, and, therefore, that they are protected by a qualified…”
Book v. Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., 608 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D. Conn. 2009). “To the extent that count fifteen raises a slander claim against the defendants for their comments directed at Book and his wife on June 21, 2005, it is barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Connecticut General Statute § 52-597. Even if the defendants’…”
Doe v. Rackliffe, 337 Conn. 627 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 2× “Other examples include the statutes governing actions for defamation; see General Statutes § 52-597 (‘‘[n]o action for libel or slander shall be brought but within two years from the date of the act complained of’’); and for product liability.”
Waterfield v. Meredith Corp., 20 A.3d 865 (N.H. 2011). “6, 13 (1988), the trial court determined that Connecticut’s limitations period, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-597 (2011), should apply.”
Abrahams v. Young & Rubicam, 979 F. Supp. 122 (D. Conn. 1997). · cites it 2× “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-597 (1996). Plaintiff concedes that he cannot proceed with his defamation claim to the extent such claim is based on statements published in 1983.”
Von Ribbeck v. Negroni (D. Conn. 2024). · cites it 9× “” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-597 . His second claim, for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, is an an intentional tort and therefore cannot be “brought but within three years from the date of the act or omission complained of.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
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.