Tara S. v. Charles J.

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** TARA S. v. CHARLES J.* (AC 39284) Lavine, Prescott and Bear, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in connection with his sexual assaults of her when she was four years old. The plaintiff, who was thirty-six years old, filed an application for a prejudgment remedy, seeking to attach certain of the defendant’s real property. In response, the defen- dant filed a motion to dismiss the application and the underlying action. After a hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $150,000 in favor of the plaintiff, determining that she had shown that there was probable cause that she would obtain a judgment against the defendant in that amount. Thereafter, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss because the applicable statute of limitations (§ 52-577d), which permits a minor victim of sexual abuse to bring an action for damages against the perpe- trator of the abuse no later than thirty years from the date that the victim attains the age of majority, was unconstitutional as applied to him for a number of reasons. Specifically, he claimed that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because the plaintiff allegedly did not repress memories of the sexual assaults, and the legislative purpose behind extending the limitations period was to allow victims of childhood sexual abuse to recall memories of the abuse that had been repressed. Held that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the application for a prejudgment remedy and the underlying action; the language of the statute was clear and unambiguous in that it allows a victim of childhood sexual abuse to bring a claim for damages against the perpetrator of the abuse no later than thirty years ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals