Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
ATAS/1432/2007 • CJ GE ATAS/1432/2007 Generato dall'IA

Relation Back Doctrine and Statutory Limitation Periods

Numero d'incarto ATAS/1432/2007
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Ginevra (CH-GE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Spese processuali a carico dell'autorità / Stato

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The case concerns a dispute over the application of certain statutory limitations periods to claims arising from a specific transaction, where the initial filing was made near the expiration of one period but the later asserted claims fell under a different, arguably shorter, limitation period. The court reasoned that because the original petition provided sufficient notice of the underlying transaction and the operative facts, the subsequent filing of claims subject to the shorter limitation period, introduced after the expiration of the initial, longer period, related back to the original filing date under the relation-back doctrine. Therefore, the court concluded that the claims were timely filed, provided the allegations in the amended pleading were based on the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF, Art. 64 LTF; Relation Back Doctrine and Statutory Limitation Periods: The court reasoned that because the original petition provided sufficient notice of the underlying transaction and the operative facts, the subsequent filing of claims subject to the shorter limitation period, introduced after the expiration of the initial, longer period, related back to the original filing date under the relation-back doctrine. Therefore, the court concluded that the claims were timely filed, provided the allegations in the amended pleading were based on the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
termini insinuazione del credito presupposti legali ipoteca legale del venditore fine del processo intervenuta prescrizione

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

Costs were imposed on the appellant.

Art. 64 LTF

Legal aid was granted to the appellant.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo



           %&&'(%)+ ,%-&.)%)+

!,

 ,  , ! !  !

/  )

$ -( 0/  )+ 



   !!!"#$$!% %%( & '  #%()"(! !!  *"(+(%, 



(%

--   .. . ..,   !(! " %( /0123 #(45617877 4





              ! " #$   $

   ,895,  

 !, ! 1 ,



74(<%8;;6*--   .. . .=!,#%>?   @%"&!%!A"(%(( (!%*!%!  "!!%##!(!3

%%71) <%8;;6+(%, (( )!!("   "!!  (!" #!B  (C/ *A"(% (( (!%  %"((% !"#!#!%"3

D"!"("E!A"&*  76" <%8;;6#% %!<"( 8:) <%8;;6#%%%!F%((!E% !("(%"!!3

#%#!7;" <%8;;6*  !E% " %!<)!% %!"%" "!!!"%(#%>A (((!EB*!)!(*%"!! B%")#%"%&)(!E!(!((%!>%AE%>%( G%E %B!("*/"%!(!%$



 !, !  ,

DA (%   D%($ 15   ! E""% %  #%(! F""%  %!(  %!= @D%#(%!"%%"!!"!!% ##!(!HBD&D)!#%")! %!<3

((D#>3

D)D(!"!!%%)!(<H((BD!)!( %I%%J3

%%(I(<(#%(! (F!"#(E!A" *#>&1;;E%$



9221:98;;6  ,595,  

 ! , 1 ! ,  , ! !  !

7$ %("!!%#%D  7;" <%8;;6$

8$ ((B%%()<H($

5$ I%J$

2$   *--    . . . .  )% ( *! !("#%"%1;;E%$E)%%%($

1$ E% #%(!BD#)(E% %%%(%#%"(%%0(  "!  5; H% >  (!E!(! #%>  %!< E""% =./K!L%/EB!44;;2  @#%)!%% (!>%%!( #<!E% " (A%($:8!E""%% %!<E""%76 H! 8;;1 = -@3  " !%  %% !( !!B%  ! (!E ( I#%)(#%(%!F(%%%( (!%3!!( 0(% %"  %!< E""% #% )! #(  #% )! "(%!B A !(!*%($28 -$#%"(%%0((#!>#!%%( !)B"  I#%)!)(0(%H!(&*)!$

 F%EE!>%  %"!(?         'M N <.  #!E% #%"(%%0(((!E!"A#%(!#%F%EE



 



9221:98;;6