Connecticut Statutes
§ 52-278j — Dismissal or withdrawal of prejudgment remedy.
Connecticut § 52-278j
This text of Connecticut § 52-278j (Dismissal or withdrawal of prejudgment remedy.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278j (2026).
Text
(a)If an application for a prejudgment remedy is granted but the plaintiff, within thirty days thereof, does not serve and return to court the writ, summons and complaint for which the prejudgment remedy was allowed, the court shall dismiss the prejudgment remedy.
(b)If an application for a prejudgment remedy is denied and the plaintiff, within thirty days thereof, does not serve and return to court the writ of summons and complaint for which the prejudgment remedy was requested, or if a date for a hearing upon a prejudgment remedy is scheduled by the clerk and such hearing is not commenced within thirty days thereof, except as provided in section 52-278e , the court shall order the application to be considered as having been withdrawn.
(c)An application for a prejudgment remedy or a pr
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Tedford v. Mds Consulting Services, Inc., No. Cv 96 0566479 (Jul. 10, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 3094 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Vaughan v. Ravalese, No. Cv-90-0701519s (Feb. 17, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 2581 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Grillo v. Szarka, No. Cv 94 55492 S (Nov. 22, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11733 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Riccio v. Dimario, No. Cv96-7426 (Mar. 27, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2151 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Chemical Bank v. Dana
234 B.R. 585 (D. Connecticut, 1999)
Legislative History
(P.A. 76-21, S. 1–3; P.A. 78-36; P.A. 91-315, S. 3, 5.) History: P.A. 78-36 allowed application to be considered as withdrawn if hearing date is scheduled and hearing is not commenced within 90 days of that date in Subsec. (b); P.A. 91-315 amended Subsecs. (a) and (b) to reduce the time period from 90 days to 30 days and to make the dismissal by the court in Subsec. (a) and the court's action in ordering the withdrawal of the application in Subsec. (b) mandatory rather than discretionary. Cited. 186 C. 295; 188 C. 69. Cited. 34 CA 303. Nothing in section implicates jurisdiction of the court to continue to hear a civil matter in which plaintiff has been granted a prejudgment remedy but failed to comply with Subsec. (a); rather the mandate in Subsec. (a) is best viewed as a sanction to prevent plaintiff from unduly encumbering assets of defendant by delaying initiation of the civil action in which the parties' dispute can be fully and fairly litigated. 156 CA 17. When plaintiff failed to serve defendant and return plaintiff's civil action to court within thirty days after the denial of his application for a prejudgment remedy, the only action required of the court was to consider the application, not the civil action, withdrawn. 163 CA 663. Requirements set forth in section are inapplicable to proceedings pursuant to Sec. 52-422. 204 CA 471. Cited. 38 CS 98.
Nearby Sections
15
§ 52-109
Substituted plaintiff.Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 52-278j, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/52-278j.