Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text

1,007 chars
In Cullen, the court reasoned that it would be inconsistent with the underlying policy of American Pipe & Construction Co. to decide that a change of legal theory amounts to a lack of notice that would bar application of the class action tolling rule. Such a limitation would “encourage and require absent class members to file protective motions to intervene and assert their new legal theories prior to class certification . . . .” (Citations omitted.) Id., 721. Connecticut’s class action procedures, however, are designed to prevent the proliferation of lawsuits, and duplicative efforts and expenses. The extent of proliferation and duplication problems in this case is illustrated by the fact that every one of the hundreds of tenants of Elm Haven would have needed to file separate actions or motions to intervene to protect his or her rights in the event the trial court did not finally certify the Connelly action as a class action, or in the event the court excluded them from the certified class.