85 Conn. App. 145 - Farnsworth v. O'Doherty’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2021
2 district · 19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Fichera v. Mine Hill Corp. · Collum v. Chapin · Prokolkin v. General Motors Corporation · Deleo v. Nusbaum · Rosenfield v. Rogin, Nassau, Caplan, Lassman & Hirtle, LLC
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 52-577 is a statute of repose in that it sets a fixed limit after which the tortfeasor will not be held liable and in some cases will serve to bar an action before it accrues.... [Section] 52-577 provides: No action founded upon a tort shall be brought but within three years from the date of the act or omission complained of. This court has determined that [§] 52-577 is an occurrence statute, meaning that the time period within which a plaintiff must commence an action begins to run at the moment the act or omission complained of occurs.... Moreover, our Supreme Court has stated that [i]n construing our general tort statute of limitations ... § 52-577, which allows an action to be brought within three years from the date of the act or omission complained of, we have concluded that the history of that legislative choice of language precludes any construction thereof delaying the start of the limitation period until the cause of action has accrued or the injury has occurred.... The three year limitation period of § 52-577, therefore, begins with the date of the act or omission complained of, not the date when the plaintiff first discovers an injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To alleviate the harsh consequences of the occurrence rule, our Supreme Court ... adopted the continuous representation doctrine in DeLeo v. Nusbaum , 263 Conn. 588 , 821 A.2d 744 (2003). Under that rule, a plaintiff may invoke the doctrine, and thus toll the statute of limitations, when the plaintiff can show: (1) that the defendant continued to represent him with regard to the same underlying matter; and (2) either that the plaintiff did not know of the alleged malpractice or that the attorney could still mitigate the harm allegedly caused by that malpractice during the continued representation period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he three year limitation period of § 52-577 begins with the date of the act or omission complained of, not the date when the plaintiff first discovers an injury”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.