Whenever in any action pending in the Superior Court a motion for a postponement or continuance is made by either party and such motion is granted, the court may require the party making the same to pay to the adverse party such sum by way of indemnity as it deems reasonable.
(1949 Rev., S. 7930; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 112; P.A. 74-183, S. 85, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 129, 681.)
History: 1959 act substituted circuit court for city court; P.A. 74-183 removed actions pending in circuit court from purview of section, reflecting transfer of circuit court functions to court of common pleas, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-436 removed actions pending in court of common pleas from purview of section reflecting transfer of all trial jurisdiction to superior court, effective July 1, 1978.
Discretion of court to grant continuances. 69 C. 186; 75 C. 308; Id., 314; 78 C. 654; 79 C. 383; 81 C. 474; 92 C. 658; 100 C. 4. Informalities in adjournment of justice court from time to time waived if parties eventually appear and are heard. 104 C. 294. Where defendant's motion for mistrial was, in essence, one for continuance or postponement because of illness of necessary witness, trial court did not err in denying motion when not informed of the facts at the time. 157 C. 561.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case:
In re Jason M., 59 A.3d 902 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
In re Jason M., 59 A.3d 902 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 3× “The respondent also argues that the court denied her motion for a continuance in violation of General Statutes § 52-196, which provides: “Whenever in any action pending in the Superior Court a motion for postponement or continuance is made by either party and such motion is…”
Robinson v. V. D. (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-196 (a) (3) (A). A party seeking protection under the statute must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the exercise of that right is in connection with a matter of public concern, as defined in § 52-196a (a) (1).”
King. v. Hubbard (Conn. App. Ct. 2023).
“§ 52-196[a].’’ Finally, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant was not entitled to attor- ney’s fees because, under § 52-196a, such fees may only be awarded after the granting of a special motion to dismiss.”
King. v. Hubbard (Conn. App. Ct. 2023).
“§ 52-196[a].’’ Finally, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant was not entitled to attor- ney’s fees because, under § 52-196a, such fees may only be awarded after the granting of a special motion to dismiss.”
Kaufman v. Synnott (Conn. App. Ct. 2026).
“As detailed in the attached affidavit of counsel, the defendant claimed accrued attorney’s fees of $91,698 and litigation costs of $2807.”
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.