If several issues are presented by the pleadings and, on the trial of one or more of such issues, an error or ground for a new trial intervenes which does not affect the legality of the trial or disposition of the other issue or issues, judgment shall not be arrested or reversed, nor a new trial granted, except so far as relates to the particular issue or issues in the trial of which such error or ground for a new trial intervened.
(1949 Rev., S. 8007.)
Reversal vacates whole judgment if it is not separable. 4 C. 196; 77 C. 537; 78 C. 202. But if erroneous portion is separable, new trial may be restricted to that portion; 1 R. 138; 8 C. 458; 15 C. 101; 31 C. 62; 32 C. 15; 64 C. 320; 72 C. 657; 76 C. 585; 80 C. 402; as in assessment of damages; 64 C. 320; 68 C. 237; 71 C. 452; 72 C. 617; 74 C. 546; 75 C. 197; 79 C. 189; 94 C. 507; 105 C. 662; 107 C. 72, 586; 108 C. 561; but error as to damages requires new trial unless way they were determined appears; 93 C. 413; in suits for construction of will; 65 C. 183; 67 C. 19; or only error is as to relief given; 79 C. 284; 105 C. 662; 107 C. 72; or in form of judgment. 74 C. 661. When proper to grant new trial as to certain issues. 94 C. 507; 107 C. 72. Where judgment is for one defendant and against rest, judgment for former may be separately affirmed. 71 C. 64; 78 C. 285. Judgment doubling or trebling damages may be reversed as to that part alone. 66 C. 578; 87 C. 253. If erroneous ruling as to damages enters into whole judgment, all falls. 67 C. 400. Where error lies at basis of judgment and justice requires retrial. 81 C. 467. Where injunction granted was too broad. 70 C. 516. Where judgment in contract action against two is reversed as to one. 75 C. 605. Where judgment is joint and only one party appeals. 89 C. 214. A judgment against several tortfeasors may be reversed as to some only. 83 C. 29. A part of a decree affecting one party, as to which no one objected, not disturbed. Id., 700. Where trial court improperly passed on question, cause was remanded with directions to enter judgment on portion properly determined. 65 C. 183. Whether trial court can require new trial as to one issue, quaere. 81 C. 104. Portion of judgment granting injunction may be set aside, rest affirmed. 90 C. 108. Part of probate decree may be set aside, rest affirmed. 92 C. 286. When general verdict rendered, and no interrogatories submitted, new trial will not be granted for error in trial of one count of complaint. 98 C. 62; 100 C. 321, 493; 104 C. 28. Only remedy for erroneous refusal to direct verdict is grant of a new trial. 107 C. 733. Cited. 182 C. 366; 190 C. 791; 191 C. 282; 207 C. 308.
Cited. 4 CA 46; 26 CA 1. Section empowers court to order a retrial restricted in scope to a unique issue or issues. 63 CA 199.
Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 240. No right to jury trial in a summary process proceeding in which no money damages are claimed. Id., 246.
Notes of Decisions
Wendland v. Ridgefield Constr. Servs., Inc., 462 A.2d 1043 (Conn. 1983).
· cites it 8× “1 *793 Following remand, the plaintiff moved the trial court “pursuant to General Statutes § 52-266 and the rule of such cases as Nash v.”
Hayes v. Decker, 822 A.2d 228 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 5× “The defendant bases this claim on General Statutes § 52-266 4 and this court’s decision in Logan v.”
Harewood v. Carter, 772 A.2d 764 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 6× “On the basis of those facts and the reasonable inferences drawn from them, we conclude that the court should not have directed a verdict for the defendant on count two of the plaintiff’s complaint. A retrial is, therefore, necessary.”
Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 3 A.3d 892 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-266 (“[i]f several issues are presented by the pleadings and, on the trial of one or more of such issues, an error or ground for a new trial intervenes which does not affect the legality of the trial or disposition of the other issue or issues, judgment…”
Logan v. Greenwich Hosp. Ass'n, 465 A.2d 294 (Conn. 1983).
· cites it 2× ““If several issues are presented by the pleadings and, on the trial of one or more of such issues, an error or ground for a new trial intervenes which does not affect the legality of the trial or disposition of the other issue or issues, judgment shall not be arrested or…”
State v. Theriault, 438 A.2d 432 (Conn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “9 Thus, it is extremely unlikely that the erroneous instruction “infected” the entire charge and would cause a reasonable juror to believe that the state did not have to prove the defendant’s criminal intent with respect *382 to all the other charges. In a proper case where the…”
West Haven Sound Dev. Corp. v. City of West Haven, 541 A.2d 858 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff argues: that in allowing causation to be relitigated on remand, the trial court went beyond the scope of our mandate; that this court affirmed the jury’s finding of causation and this affirmation became the law of the case; that causation was res judicata; and *312…”
Montanaro Bros. Builders, Inc. v. Snow, 492 A.2d 223 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985).
· cites it 2× “In making this argument, *55 the defendants appear to overlook the mandate of Montanaro I, in which the Supreme Court remanded this case on exactly that issue.”
Musorofiti v. Vlcek, 783 A.2d 36 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 2× “That recognition is consistent with General Statutes § 52-266, which provides: “If several issues are presented by the pleadings and, on the trial of one or more of such issues, an error or ground for a new trial intervenes which does not affect the legality of the trial or…”
Ziotas v. Reardon Law Firm, P.C., 959 A.2d 1013 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 52-266. The judgment is reversed as to the striking of count two of the plaintiffs third revised complaint and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent *315 with this opinion; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.”
Zolotas v. Stimpson, 596 A.2d 941 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-266; Nash v. Hunt, 166 Conn.”
Rioux v. State Ethics Comm'n, 709 A.2d 613 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997).
“It is even more apparent from §§ 52-266 and 52-266a that a sheriff may not charge an additional $15 service fee for service of process.”
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.