Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 895 — Civil Jurisdiction
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-32 (2025)

Transfer of causes brought to the wrong court

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 52-32 is repealed.

(1949 Rev., S. 7792; February, 1965, P.A. 201; P.A. 76-436, S. 148, 681.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1966–2017 · leading case: Farricielli v. Connecticut Pers. Appeal Bd., 440 A.2d 286 (Conn. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Farricielli v. Connecticut Pers. Appeal Bd., 440 A.2d 286 (Conn. 1982). · cites it 4× “This view is wholly inconsistent with the action this court has taken on numerous occasions in transferring appeals properly within the jurisdiction of the appellate session of the Superior Court to that court pursuant to Practice Book § 3076 and in accepting appeals transferred…”
Chieppo v. Robert E. McMichael, Inc., 363 A.2d 1085 (Conn. 1975). · cites it 8× “They further claim that since the Superior Court had jurisdiction of the appeal, it properly transferred the appeal to the Court of Common Pleas under § 164 1 of the Practice Book.”
Bd. of Educ. v. Tavares Pediatric Ctr., 888 A.2d 65 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 2× “to 1972) § 52-32 based on those factors. 12 Chieppo v.”
Freese v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. Gustav Cariglio, 169 A.3d 237 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “to 1975) § 52-32. Id., at 648-49, 363 A.2d 1085 . Because the purpose of the workers' compensation act was to provide a prompt, effective means of compensating injured workers for related expenses, it was not deemed a "civil action" for purposes of § 52-32.”
City of Waterbury v. Waterbury Police Union, 407 A.2d 1013 (Conn. 1979). “The court in CMeppo held that appeals in workmen’s compensation cases were not ordinary *408 civil actions and therefore that the provisions of § 52-32 governing the transfer of civil actions were not applicable to such proceedings.”
Prout v. Monroe, 224 A.2d 566 (Conn. App. Ct. 1966). “If his claim is beyond the monetary jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, then the action may be transferred to the proper court under § 52-32. I therefore conclude that the Circuit Court has jurisdiction over actions to settle title to land.”
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.