From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Inv. Assocs. v. Summit Assocs., Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 12, 2012
34 A.3d 396 (Conn. 2012)

Opinion

2012-01-12

INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES v. SUMMIT ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.

Proloy K. Das and Bernard F. Gaffney, Hartford, in support of the petition. Pasquale Young, New Haven, in opposition.


Proloy K. Das and Bernard F. Gaffney, Hartford, in support of the petition. Pasquale Young, New Haven, in opposition.

The petition by the defendant Joseph D. Lancia for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 132 Conn.App. 192, 31 A.3d 820 (AC 32227), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that General Statutes § 52–598(c) is procedural in nature, and, therefore, may be applied retroactively?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's 2009 motion to revive?

“3. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant for purposes of adjudicating the plaintiff's 2009 motion to revive?”


Summaries of

Inv. Assocs. v. Summit Assocs., Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 12, 2012
34 A.3d 396 (Conn. 2012)
Case details for

Inv. Assocs. v. Summit Assocs., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES v. SUMMIT ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Jan 12, 2012

Citations

34 A.3d 396 (Conn. 2012)
303 Conn. 921

Citing Cases

Inv. Assocs. v. Summit Assocs., Inc.

”; (2) “Did the Appellate Court properly determine that ... § 52–598(c) is procedural in nature, and,…