Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-208 (2026)

Reception of evidence objected to as inadmissible

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever evidence offered upon the trial of any civil action is objected to as inadmissible, the court or committee trying such action shall not admit such evidence subject to the objection, unless both parties agree that it be so admitted; but, if either party requests a decision, such court or committee shall pass upon such objection and admit or reject the testimony.

(1949 Rev., S. 7960.)

Does not apply to evidence received in advance of its logical place. 53 C. 558. New trial ordinarily granted for an infraction of statute, unless the error appears to have been harmless. 68 C. 63. Admitting evidence with an offer to consider later a motion to strike it out is equivalent of admitting it subject to objection. 130 C. 232. Cited. 132 C. 646. To avail himself of the rule that grounds upon which evidence is claimed to be inadmissible must be stated, a party must state the grounds for his claim of admissibility. 148 C. 208.

Cited. 5 CA 118.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1985–1999 · leading case: HLO Land Ownership Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. City of Hartford, 727 A.2d 1260 (Conn. 1999).
HLO Land Ownership Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. City of Hartford, 727 A.2d 1260 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 2× “*356 General Statutes § 52-208 provides in relevant part: “Whenever evidence offered upon the trial of any civil action is objected to as inadmissible, the court or committee trying such action shall not admit such evidence subject to the objection, unless both parties agree…”
Kufferman v. Fairfield Univ., 497 A.2d 77 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 2× “766 (1896); see also General Statutes § 52-208 (when evidence is objected to as inadmissible, court must pass on objection and admit or reject evidence, unless parties agree it may be admitted subject to objection).”
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.