Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 37 — INTEREST · Chapter 673 — Interest
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3 (2026)

Rate recoverable as damages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 37-3 is repealed.

(1949 Rev., S. 6778; 1961, P.A. 116, S. 19; 1971, P.A. 574; 783, S. 2.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: State v. Pierre, 890 A.2d 474 (Conn. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pierre, 890 A.2d 474 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Practice Book § 37-3. The rules of practice also contain provisions for canceling or amending arrest warrants and informations as necessary.”
Gen. Elec. Supply Co. v. S. New England Tel. Co., 441 A.2d 581 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 3× “The allowance of interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3 (now § 37-3a) 16 is primarily an equitable determination within the discretion of the trial court.”
Cecio Bros., Inc. v. Feldmann, 287 A.2d 374 (Conn. 1971). · cites it 2× “The defendant claims that interest properly could not be awarded since there was no finding by the court that the defendant wrongfully withheld payment.”
Munroe v. Emhart Corp., 699 A.2d 213 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “5 After rendition of the judgment, Munroe filed a motion seeking to *45 have the trial court add further interest at 10 percent pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3. 6 The trial court denied the motion stating that “[i]nasmuch as the court has already awarded interest pursuant to…”
Jenkins v. Indem. Ins. Co. of North Am., 205 A.2d 780 (Conn. 1964). · cites it 2× “judgment would also include Patricia’s taxable costs -as well as interest on the judgment under General Statutes § 37-3. There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded for the rendition of a judgment (1) granting a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant…”
Ballou v. Law Offices Howard Lee Schiff, 39 A.3d 1075 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 2× “to 1962) § 37-3, [10] the predecessor statute to § 37-3a: "The statute is applicable to ` damages for the detention of money after it becomes payable' in those cases in which the contract makes no provision as to the rate of interest after maturity but is not applicable [to]…”
Cadle Co. v. D'addario, 26 A.3d 682 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “534 , our Supreme Court interpreted General Statutes § 37-3, a more recent predecessor to § 37-3a, and substantially the same in substance as the statute in question in Hubbard .”
Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan, Corp. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 199 F. Supp. 3d 559 (D. Conn. 2016). · cites it 2× “Connecticut General Statutes § 37-3(a) provides for “interest at the rate of ten percent a year, and no more, .”
State v. Bangulescu, 832 A.2d 1187 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). “Aside from his correct assertion that the court did not ask him whether he had heard and understood the collective rights advisement, the defendant makes no claim on appeal that he was in any way prejudiced by the court’s failure to comply strictly with the require *37 ments of…”
Avon Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Fey, 670 A.2d 1318 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 2× “73, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to statutory interest pursuant to General Statutes § 37-3. Both parties objected to the fact finder’s report, the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff corporation could not be a licensed plumber for the purposes of the exemption…”
State v. Tierinni, 71 A.3d 675 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the defendant argues that his counsel was not asked whether he had informed the defendant of his right to a hearing and that the court *236 did not advise the defendant according to Practice Book § 37-3.”
Gentile v. Ives, 270 A.2d 680 (Conn. 1970). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs’ rights were adequately protected, and there is no justification for the plaintiffs’ claim concerning lack of protection against “witness shopping” by the state.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3(a) — 1 case
Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan, Corp. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 199 F. Supp. 3d 559 (D. Conn. 2016). “Connecticut General Statutes § 37-3(a) provides for “interest at the rate of ten percent a year, and no more, .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.