Connecticut Statutes
§ 52-278n — Motion to disclose property. Order for disclosure. Substitution of surety.
Connecticut § 52-278n
This text of Connecticut § 52-278n (Motion to disclose property. Order for disclosure. Substitution of surety.) 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. § 52-278n (2026).
Text
(a)The court may, on motion of a party, order an appearing defendant to disclose property in which he has an interest or debts owing to him sufficient to satisfy a prejudgment remedy. The existence, location and extent of the defendant's interest in such property or debts shall be subject to disclosure. The form and terms of disclosure shall be determined by the court.
(b)A motion to disclose pursuant to this section may be made by attaching it to the application for a prejudgment remedy or may be made at any time after the filing of the application.
(c)The court may order disclosure at any time prior to final judgment after it has determined that the party filing the motion for disclosure has, pursuant to section 52-278d , 52-278e or 52-278i , probable cause sufficient for the granting
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Roberts v. Triplanet Partners, LLC
950 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D. Connecticut, 2013)
Bahrain Telecommunications Co. v. Discoverytel, Inc.
476 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
Insurity, Inc. v. Mutual Group, Ltd.
260 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D. Connecticut, 2003)
Metal Management, Inc. v. Schiavone
514 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
Electro-Methods, Inc. v. Adolf Meller Co.
473 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
Gellatly Petroleum v. Atlantic Tech., No. Cv 950143162s (Oct. 5, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11419 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Floodbreak, LLC v. Art Metal Industries, LLC
(D. Connecticut, 2021)
Sentementes v. Lamont
(D. Connecticut, 2021)
Zhen Zhu v. Matsu Corp.
(D. Connecticut, 2022)
Jordan v. Gifford
(D. Connecticut, 2023)
Investors Capital Corp. v. Connecticut National Bank
824 F. Supp. 309 (D. Connecticut, 1993)
Amatulli v. People's Bank
965 F. Supp. 1 (D. Connecticut, 1997)
Legislative History
(P.A. 81-410, S. 1; P.A. 86-403, S. 86, 132; P.A. 93-431, S. 6, 10; P.A. 24-108, S. 35.) History: P.A. 86-403 made technical change in Subsec. (c); P.A. 93-431 amended Subsec. (c) to replace “issuance of a prejudgment remedy” with “granting of a prejudgment remedy”, effective January 1, 1994; P.A. 24-108 added new Subsec. (e) re party not being able to compel disclosure of names and addresses of clients of an individual or entity that provides professional services when disclosure would violate state or federal law or applicable rules of professional conduct, and redesignated existing Subsec. (e) as Subsec. (f). Cited. 188 C. 69; 226 C. 773. Cited. 19 CA 256; 29 CA 48. Cited. 38 CS 98.
Nearby Sections
15
§ 52-109
Substituted plaintiff.Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 52-278n, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/52-278n.