Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)

Citation: Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)
Parent Document: Grimes v. Housing Authority, 242 Conn. 236 (1997)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1997-07-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7897210/grimes-v-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

757 chars

In order to satisfy the notice requirement, the American Pipe & Construction Co. rule can be applied only in those situations where the class action has “notifie[d] the defendants ... of the substantive claims being brought against them [and] of the number and generic identities of the potential plaintiffs who may participate in the judgment.” American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, supra, 414 U.S. 555. The defendant argues that *246the first prong of the tolling rale was not met because the plaintiffs’ cause of action is not the same as that in the class action, and the second prong was not met because the plaintiffs were not generally identified as potential class members in the Connelly complaint. We address each of these arguments in turn. A

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text