Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
248 Conn. 920; 734 A.2d 569; 1999 Conn. LEXIS 168
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Tarzia v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (Conn. 2000)
- Biller Associates v. Route 156 Realty Co. (Conn. 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The third party defendant Samuel Heyman’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 52 Conn. App. 136 (AC 16676), is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Did the Appellate Court properly enforce the twenty day time limit of General Statutes § 52-102a for asserting a claim against an impleaded party?
“2. Did the Appellate Court properly hold that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow an untimely ‘assertion of claim’ to be ‘amended’ into a negligence complaint after the jury had been selected?”
CALLAHAN, C. J., and MCDONALD, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.