Skip to main content

Lambert v. Stovell

Citations

  • 205 Conn. 1
  • 529 A.2d 710
  • 1987 Conn. LEXIS 989

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • claim accrued when plaintiff was “aware of circumstances indicating that he had suffered a form of ‘actionable harm’ and should have discovered his injury at that time”
  • general denial of complaint and statute of limitations defense causes general verdict for defendant to be reasonably rendered on one or more distinct grounds
  • \[t]he three year provision of § 52-577 is applicable to all tort actions other than those excepted therefrom by § 52-584 or other sections\
  • in negligence actions brought under Connecticut law, “injury” means actionable harm for statute of limitations purposes
  • Accrual of medical malpractice action occurs on discovery of some form of actionable harm, not on discovery of applicable legal theories.
  • because claim was “based upon a lack of informed consent and not an absence of consent,” it was not a battery claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Santaniello

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.