(a) Any arbitrator or umpire and any other persons qualified by law to issue subpoenas in civil actions shall have power to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and for the production of books, papers and other evidence at arbitration hearings. The subpoenas shall be served in the manner provided by law for the service of subpoenas in a civil action and shall be returnable to the arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire.
(b) On application of an arbitrator, umpire or other person, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in the case of land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated or, when the court is not in session, any judge thereof, shall order necessary process to issue to compel compliance with subpoenas in an arbitration matter in the manner provided by law concerning subpoenas in a civil action.
(c) Any party to a written agreement for arbitration may make application to the Superior Court, or, when the court is not in session, to a judge thereof, having jurisdiction as provided in subsection (b) of this section, for an order directing the taking of depositions, in the manner and for the reasons prescribed by law for taking depositions to be used in a civil action, for use as evidence in an arbitration.
(1949 Rev., S. 8155; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 127; P.A. 82-160, S. 152; P.A. 05-288, S. 179.)
History: P.A. 78-280 substituted “judicial district” for “county”; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators; P.A. 05-288 made a technical change in Subsec. (c), effective July 13, 2005.
Cited. 157 C. 364; 163 C. 327; 208 C. 352; 218 C. 646.
Cited. 25 CA 126; 28 CA 270; 34 CA 772; 41 CA 625.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case:
Bennett v. Meader, 545 A.2d 553 (Conn. 1988).
Bennett v. Meader, 545 A.2d 553 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 4× “The statutory arbitration scheme encompasses many aspects of the arbitration process ranging from the agreement to arbitrate; General Statutes § 52-408; through the relationship between the arbitration process and the judicial process; General Statutes §§ 52-409 and 52-410;…”
Nestor v. Travelers Indem. Co., 677 A.2d 475 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 8× “The plaintiff bases his statutory claims 9 on General Statutes § 52-412 (c), which allows a party to seek “an order directing the taking of depositions .”
Chmielewski v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 591 A.2d 101 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, the arbitrators appointed under chapter 909 of the General Statutes; General Statutes §§ 52-408 through 52-424, governing arbitration proceedings; to hear uninsured motorist coverage disputes under § 38-175c must swear “to hear and examine the matter in controversy…”
Khan v. Yale Univ., 295 A.3d 855 (Conn. 2023).
· cites it 2× “14; are proce- dural safeguards common to quasi-judicial proceedings. This court also has recognized the opportunity for coun- sel to be present and meaningfully assist their client during the proceeding as an important safeguard that helps to identify a quasi-judicial…”
Marsala v. Valve Corp. of Am., 254 A.2d 469 (Conn. 1969).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiff, on February 21, had made application to the Superior Court, apparently pursuant to General Statutes § 52-412, for the taking of a deposition of Philip Sagarin, an officer of the defendant, and on March 20, the plaintiff filed in the Superior Court a notice that…”
McKenna v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 592 A.2d 980 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 5× “to General Statutes § 52-412. 1 *128 The trial court denied the plaintiffs application on several grounds.”
City of Middletown v. von Mahland, 643 A.2d 888 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 6× “The city filed an application in Superior Court requesting an order to compel von Mahland to comply with the subpoena to testify at a new arbitration hearing. After a hearing, the court granted the city’s application for an order to compel compliance with the administrative…”
Local Lodge 1746, Iam & Aw v. Pratt & Whitney Div. Uac, 329 F. Supp. 283 (D. Conn. 1971).
· cites it 4× “§ 7 and Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-412; (2) to enforce subpoenas which were originally issued under the authority of state law; (3) to *284 grant relief where the petitioner fails to state a lawful claim, and (4) because an improper party had brought the enforcement petition, since…”
Tirreno v. The Hartford, 161 Conn. App. 678 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes §§ 52-412, 52-415, 52-416 and 52-418.”
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.