(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections
52-264 and
52-265, any party to an action who is aggrieved by an order or decision of the Superior Court in an action which involves a matter of substantial public interest and in which delay may work a substantial injustice, may appeal under this section from the order or decision to the Supreme Court within two weeks from the date of the issuance of the order or decision. The appeal shall state the question of law on which it is based.
(b) The Chief Justice shall, within one week of receipt of the appeal, rule whether the issue involves a substantial public interest and whether delay may work a substantial injustice.
(c) Upon certification by the Chief Justice that a substantial public interest is involved and that delay may work a substantial injustice, the trial judge shall immediately transmit a certificate of his decision, together with a proper finding of fact, to the Chief Justice, who shall thereupon call a special session of the Supreme Court for the purpose of an immediate hearing upon the appeal.
(d) The Chief Justice may make orders to expedite such appeals, including orders specifying the manner in which the record on appeal may be prepared.
(1967, P.A. 895; P.A. 76-436, S. 140, 681; P.A. 82-160, S. 138.)
History: P.A. 76-436 removed appeals from orders or decisions of 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 and inserted Subsec. indicators.
Cited. 192 C. 704; 194 C. 677; 195 C. 303; Id., 384; 196 C. 451; 199 C. 667; 202 C. 252; Id., 405; Id., 660; 204 C. 212; 208 C. 156; Id., 329; Id., 515; 212 C. 258; 216 C. 253; 217 C. 303; 221 C. 346; 222 C. 331; 225 C. 305; 226 C. 757; 227 C. 545; 233 C. 557; 235 C. 206; Id., 671; 239 C. 93; 241 C. 282; 242 C. 409. Discovery order in insurance coverage case is appealable since such order directly involved attorney-client privilege, and could compromise such privilege in claims litigated in other jurisdictions and prejudice plaintiff's handling of ongoing and future actions due to the knowledge that communications with clients might not be kept confidential. 249 C. 36. Late petition for certification to appeal was proper under section where it was clear that Supreme Court had jurisdiction over certified matter and the facts of the case militated in favor of choosing the most expeditious route to avoid potentially irreparable harm to intervenors. 302 C. 162. A crime victim is not a party to the criminal proceeding in the trial court and is therefore precluded from pursuing an appeal under section. 304 C. 330.
Cited. 22 CA 73; 29 CA 105; Id., 716; 32 CA 340; 37 CA 269; Id., 694.
Cited. 37 CS 541.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
141
cases (
26 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case:
State v. Komisarjevsky, 25 A.3d 613 (Conn. 2011).
State v. Komisarjevsky, 25 A.3d 613 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 68× “3d 465 (2011). At oral argument before this court, Chief *616 Justice Rogers raised the issue of whether the defendant's appeal could be treated as a direct public interest appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, [2] which permits this court to consider an interlocutory…”
State v. Fernando a., 981 A.2d 427 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 18× “, appeals, *430 upon the grant of his application filed pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, [3] from the trial court's denial of his *431 request for an evidentiary hearing prior to the issuance of a criminal protective order.”
Metro. Life Ins. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 730 A.2d 51 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 24× “On September 16,1998, the plaintiff applied for certification to appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a (a), which provides generally that interlocutory orders and decisions of the trial court may be appealed to this court upon certification by the chief justice when the…”
Hall v. Gilbert & Bennett Mfg. Co., 695 A.2d 1051 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 24× “In response to our raising of the final judgment issue, sua sponte, the fund requested, in a letter sent in accordance with Practice Book § 4064J, that this court consider General Statutes § 52-265a 13 as an alternative basis for jurisdiction.”
Off. of the Governor v. Select Comm. of Inquiry, 858 A.2d 709 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 18× “Following the trial court's decision, the plaintiff, representing that it intended to appeal from the court's judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a; see footnote 2 of this opinion; applied to the trial court for a stay of the subpoena until this court could hear and…”
State v. Ayala, 610 A.2d 1162 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 21× “The special circumstances of this case fit within the substantive ambit of General Statutes § 52-265a (a), 10 which allows the chief justice to certify a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court on an issue of law that “involves a…”
Connecticut Coalition for Just. in Educ. Funding, Inc. v. Rell, 990 A.2d 206 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 10× “, [2] and numerous parents and their children, who are enrolled in public schools across the state, [3] appeal, upon a grant of certification by the Chief Justice pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, [4] from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the…”
Pamela B. v. Ment, 709 A.2d 1089 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 7× “Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, 9 the defendants sought certification to appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss and/or strike and the plaintiff similarly sought certification to appeal the decision striking her claim for injunctive relief.”
Moore v. Ganim, 660 A.2d 742 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 10× “Despite the absence of a final judgment, the plaintiffs sought an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, granted certification to appeal.”
Laurel Park, Inc. v. Pac, 485 A.2d 1272 (Conn. 1984).
· cites it 10× “The granting of the plaintiffs application for a temporary injunction was appealed to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a and Practice Book § 3164.”
Ambroise v. William Raveis Real Est., Inc., 628 A.2d 1303 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 6× “2d 1162 (1992) (Chief Justice has discretion to waive noncompliance with two week requirement for appeal under General Statutes § 52-265a; time period not jurisdictional).”
State v. Gault, 39 A.3d 1105 (Conn. 2012).
· cites it 10× “The victim has requested that, if we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over her appeal, we instead treat it as a public interest appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a. [18] Such requests normally *1117 are directed only to the Chief Justice of this court.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-265a(a) — 1 case
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.