Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 51 — COURTS · Chapter 890 — Judicial Districts, Geographical Areas, Civil and Criminal Venue, Filing and Designation of Court Location
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-351 (2026)

Return to improper locations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No cause shall fail on the ground that it has been made returnable to an improper location.

(P.A. 77-576, S. 10, 65.)

Authority to transfer extends to administrative appeals as well as ordinary civil actions. 3 CA 484. Cited. 6 CA 261. “Cause” also applies to appeals from probate. 9 CA 368.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1982–2007 · leading case: Farricielli v. Connecticut Pers. Appeal Bd., 440 A.2d 286 (Conn. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Farricielli v. Connecticut Pers. Appeal Bd., 440 A.2d 286 (Conn. 1982). · cites it 16× “An additional reason for my disagreement is the enactment of General Statutes § 51-351 which became effective on July 1, 1978, while this action was pending in the trial court but before the trial court decided the motion to dimiss.”
Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. City of New London, 925 A.2d 292 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 13× “Finally, Justice Shea noted in his dissent that, while the plaintiffs appeal in Farricielli was pending in the trial court, the legislature had enacted General Statutes § 51-351, providing that “[n]o cause shall fail on the ground that it has been made returnable to an improper…”
Sprague v. Comm'n on Human Rights, 489 A.2d 1064 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 9× “The plaintiff relies on General Statutes § 51-351, which became effective on July 1, 1978, while the Farricielli case was pending in the trial court.”
Szabo v. Beregszazy, 519 A.2d 81 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 11× “2 Pursuant to these statutes, the court found that any defect in the form of an appeal, including improper venue, must be corrected by amendment within ninety days after the date of the probate action being appealed.”
Greenman's Trucking, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue Servs., 504 A.2d 568 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “” Notwithstanding the defendant’s default in failing to preserve for our consideration its prior jurisdictional claim, it has briefed this counterissue.”
Ellis Betensky v. Opcon Assocs., Inc., 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 4824 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 51-351 provides that: “No cause shall fail on the ground that it has been made returnable to an improper location.”
Lasky v. Pivnick, 759 A.2d 560 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000). · cites it 3× “” As such, the plaintiffs’ argument is without merit. The judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, therefore, is an improper venue and the proper venue is the judicial district of Hartford.”
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.