Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-209 (2026)

Argument of counsel; time limit

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In a trial before the Superior Court, counsel shall not occupy more than one hour in argument, unless the court, on motion for special cause, before the commencement of the argument, allows a longer time. Interlocutory questions arising during the trial of an action shall not be argued by counsel unless the court requests it.

(1949 Rev., S. 7962; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 113; P.A. 76-436, S. 404, 681; P.A. 82-160, S. 100.)

History: 1959 act deleted provision for appeal from trial before justice of the peace; P.A. 76-436 removed trials before court of common pleas from purview of section, reflecting transfer of all trial jurisdiction to superior court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section.

Constitutional right of the accused to be heard by counsel is subject to a reasonable time limit. 47 C. 535. Party represented by two counsel in Superior Court may occupy two hours in argument, dividing the time as they may agree. 55 C. 18. Discretion of court to extend time for argument. 95 C. 79. Cited. 122 C. 611; 217 C. 671.

Where presentation of evidence lasted three and one-half days and plaintiff's counsel did not move for additional time until after the argument had begun, rule of court limiting him to one hour was not an abuse of discretion. 15 CS 305.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1991–2003 · leading case: Harlan v. Norwalk Anesthesiology, P.C., 816 A.2d 719 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Harlan v. Norwalk Anesthesiology, P.C., 816 A.2d 719 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 4× “” See also General Statutes § 52-209. 7 We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to find that the plaintiff had established “special cause” for a longer argument.”

Bartholomew v. Schweizer, 587 A.2d 1014 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 2× “This statutory provision has survived, with minor change, into the present; it is now codified as General Statutes § 52-209. General Statutes § 52-216b also would not preclude promulgation of a rule, similar to that which we adopted with respect to comment on inferences to be…”

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.