Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
ATAS/1432/2007 • CJ GE ATAS/1432/2007 Généré par l'IA

Relation Back Doctrine and Statutory Limitation Periods

Numéro de cause ATAS/1432/2007
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Frais judiciaires à la charge de l'autorité

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'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.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'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.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
délais production de créance motifs légaux hypothèque légale du vendeur d'immeuble règlement du litige forclusion de l'action

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

Costs were imposed on the appellant.

Art. 64 LTF

Legal aid was granted to the appellant.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet



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

!,

 ,  , ! !  !

/  )

$ -( 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