(a) The judges of the Supreme Court, the judges of the Appellate Court, and the judges of the Superior Court shall adopt and promulgate and may from time to time modify or repeal rules and forms regulating pleading, practice and procedure in judicial proceedings in courts in which they have the constitutional authority to make rules, for the purpose of simplifying proceedings in the courts and of promoting the speedy and efficient determination of litigation upon its merits. The rules of the Appellate Court shall be as consistent as feasible with the rules of the Supreme Court to promote uniformity in the procedure for the taking of appeals and may dispense, so far as justice to the parties will permit while affording a fair review, with the necessity of printing of records and briefs. Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right or the jurisdiction of any of the courts. Such rules shall become effective on such date as the judges specify but not in any event until sixty days after such promulgation, except that such rules may become effective prior to the expiration of the sixty-day time period if the judges deem that circumstances require that a new rule or a change to an existing rule be adopted expeditiously.
(b) The judges or a committee of their number shall hold public hearings, of which reasonable notice shall be given in the Connecticut Law Journal and otherwise as they deem proper, upon any proposed new rule or any change in an existing rule that is to come before said judges for action, and each such proposed new rule or change in an existing rule shall be published in the Connecticut Law Journal as a part of such notice. A public hearing shall be held at least once a year, of which reasonable notice shall likewise be given, at which any member of the bar or layman may bring to the attention of the judges any new rule or change in an existing rule that he deems desirable.
(c) Upon the taking effect of such rules adopted and promulgated by the judges of the Supreme Court pursuant to the provisions of this section, all provisions of rules theretofore promulgated by the judges of the Superior Court shall be deemed to be repealed.
(1953, 1955, S. 3129d; 1955, S. 3130d; 1957, P.A. 651, S. 27; P.A. 76-436, S. 48, 681; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29, S. 9, 82; P.A. 07-217, S. 186; P.A. 21-104, S. 38; P.A. 24-108, S. 34.)
History: P.A. 76-436 amended section to extend power to adopt and modify rules, etc. to superior court judges and added Subsec. (e) re rules to effectuate transfer of jurisdiction, effective July 1, 1978; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29 included reference to judges of appellate court, added provision re rules of appellate court and deleted provisions of Subsec. (e) re rules necessary for transfer of jurisdiction pursuant to Sec. 51-164s; P.A. 07-217 made technical changes in Subsec. (a), effective July 12, 2007; P.A. 21-104 amended Subsec. (a) to delete provision re being subject to Subsec. (b) and add provision re effective date of rules when circumstances require adoption of rules expeditiously, effective June 28, 2021; P.A. 24-108 deleted former Subsec. (b) re all statutes relating to pleading, practice and procedure in existence on July 1, 1957, being deemed rules of the court and that required reporting of such rules to the General Assembly and redesignated existing Subsecs. (c) and (d) as Subsecs. (b) and (c).
Rules made under former section have the force of statutes. 59 C. 45. Rules can only give effect to the real purpose of the practice act. 73 C. 6. Cited. 115 C. 101; 140 C. 643; 145 C. 222; 157 C. 157; 186 C. 153; 187 C. 292; 190 C. 657; 194 C. 312; 217 C. 532; 222 C. 299; 223 C. 411; 224 C. 711; 226 C. 757; 229 C. 178.
Cited. 17 CA 219; 25 CA 262; 32 CA 1; 37 CA 252; judgment reversed, see 236 C. 388; Id., 801; 39 CA 632; 42 CA 17; Id., 768.
Cited. 24 CS 25; 28 CS 34. Any change proposed in criminal court procedure should be brought before rules committee of judges. Id., 366. Cited. 38 CS 389; 40 CS 238; 43 CS 211.
Cited. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 698, 700.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
109
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1962–2024 · leading case:
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 38× “53a; the legislative committee charged with oversight of this subject, in accordance with General Statutes § 51-14, [4] submitted the code to *93 former Chief Justice Callahan, as head of the judicial branch, for consideration and adoption.”
State v. Reid, 894 A.2d 963 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 18× “See General Statutes §§ 51-14 [4] and 52-264.”
Batte-Holmgren v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 914 A.2d 996 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 8× “, General Statutes § 51-14 (a) (The judges of the Supreme Court, the judges of the Appellate Court, and the judges of the Superior Court shall adopt and promulgate and may from time to time modify or repeal rules and forms regulating pleading, practice and procedure in judicial…”
Spitzer v. Haims & Co., 587 A.2d 105 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 18× “procedure implemented by the trial court: (1) violated his constitutional right to trial by jury guaranteed by article first, § 19, of the Connecticut constitution; (2) infringed upon the separation of powers provision of article second of the Connecticut constitution; (3)…”
Simms v. Warden, 640 A.2d 601 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 4× “A textual comparison of the two provisions ineluctably demonstrates that, after a denial by the *184 habeas court of certification to appeal that is not an abuse of discretion, the statute precludes access to a writ of error, while the Practice Book authorizes its use.”
Adams v. Rubinow, 251 A.2d 49 (Conn. 1968).
· cites it 9× “The rule-making power of the General Assembly with respect to the lower courts can, and preferably should, be delegated to the Supreme Court as it has been, at least as to practice and procedure, under General Statutes § 51-14 and under § 10 of the Act.”
Wiseman v. Armstrong, 989 A.2d 1027 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 4× “See General Statutes § 51-14 (a) (not *111 ing that rules of practice and procedure ‘shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right or the jurisdiction of any of the courts’); In re Samantha C.”
Hummel v. Marten Transports, Ltd., 923 A.2d 657 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 51-14[a] authorizes the judges of the Superior Court to promulgate rules regulating pleading, practice and procedure in judicial proceedings.”
Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Est., Inc., 628 A.2d 1303 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Even assuming that the plaintiffs are correct in asserting that § 52-2781 does not apply, the insurmountable difficulty with their argument is that it assumes the applicability of the twenty day period, as a default position, whenever § 52-2781 is inapplicable.”
State v. Clemente, 353 A.2d 723 (Conn. 1974).
· cites it 8× “See General Statutes §§51-14, [5] 52-264; In re Appeal of Dattilo, 136 Conn.”
Steadwell v. Warden, Connecticut Corr. Inst., Somers, 439 A.2d 1078 (Conn. 1982).
· cites it 8× “The Superior Court is empowered to adopt and promulgate rules "regulating pleading, practice and procedure in judicial proceedings in courts in which they have the constitutional authority to make rules, for the purpose of simplifying proceedings in the courts and of promoting…”
State v. Parker, 992 A.2d 1103 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 51-14 (a) [provides that] .”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-14(a) — 6 cases
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
“53a; the legislative committee charged with oversight of this subject, in accordance with General Statutes § 51-14, [4] submitted the code to *93 former Chief Justice Callahan, as head of the judicial branch, for consideration and adoption.”
State v. Reid, 894 A.2d 963 (Conn. 2006).
“See General Statutes §§ 51-14 [4] and 52-264.”
Batte-Holmgren v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 914 A.2d 996 (Conn. 2007).
“, General Statutes § 51-14 (a) (The judges of the Supreme Court, the judges of the Appellate Court, and the judges of the Superior Court shall adopt and promulgate and may from time to time modify or repeal rules and forms regulating pleading, practice and procedure in judicial…”
Wiseman v. Armstrong, 989 A.2d 1027 (Conn. 2010).
“See General Statutes § 51-14 (a) (not *111 ing that rules of practice and procedure ‘shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right or the jurisdiction of any of the courts’); In re Samantha C.”
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.