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., 328 A.3d 198 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 2× “‘‘The defendant presented evidence before the trial court that his actions related to a matter of public concern because they (1) arose from a collective bargaining agreement between the Coast Guard and the American Federation of Government Employees, Council 120, to which the…”
King. v. Hubbard, 288 A.3d 218 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023).
“’’ Finally, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant was not entitled to attorney’s fees because, under § 52-196a, such fees may only be awarded after the granting of a special motion to dismiss.”
King. v. Hubbard, 288 A.3d 218 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023).
“’’ Finally, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant was not entitled to attorney’s fees because, under § 52-196a, such fees may only be awarded after the granting of a special motion to dismiss.”
Kaufman v. Synnott, No. AC48141 (Conn. App. Ct. June 30, 2026).
“28 for a total of $94,505.27.24 In response, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment.”
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.