At any time before an award is rendered pursuant to an arbitration under this chapter, the superior court for the judicial district in which one of the parties resides or, in a controversy concerning land, for the judicial district in which the land is situated or, when said court is not in session, any judge thereof, upon application of any party to the arbitration, may make forthwith such order or decree, issue such process and direct such proceedings as may be necessary to protect the rights of the parties pending the rendering of the award and to secure the satisfaction thereof when rendered and confirmed.
(1949 Rev., S. 8165; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 127.)
History: P.A. 78-280 substituted “judicial district” for “county”.
Cited. 140 C. 446. Order entered pursuant to section temporarily reinstating plaintiff was immediately appealable as a final judgment. 228 C. 106. Cited. 232 C. 175; 233 C. 370. Although court had subject matter jurisdiction over an arbitration dispute because an award had not yet been rendered and the allegation was that injunctive relief was necessary to protect rights pending the rendering of the award, in this case concerning matters reserved to arbitration, there was no basis on which to conclude that injunctive relief sought by plaintiff was essential or indispensable to safeguard rights. 271 C. 329.
A motion to dismiss predicated upon the absence of standing is not a proceeding that must comply with section because a motion to dismiss is not a pendente lite proceeding. 162 CA 430. Requirements set forth in Sec. 52-278j are inapplicable to proceedings under this section. 204 CA 471. Regardless of whether the arbitration had not yet begun or had already concluded, no pending arbitration existed at the time the petition for order pendente lite was filed and thus, court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's petition. 210 CA 788.
Notes of Decisions
New England Pipe Corp. v. Ne. Corridor Found., 857 A.2d 348 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 20× “1 The plaintiff brought an action seeking an order, under General Statutes § 52-422, 2 permanently enjoining arbitra *331 tion between the parties or, alternatively, an order, under § 52-422, enjoining the arbitration panel (panel) from hearing expert testimony offered by the…”
Goodson v. State, 635 A.2d 285 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 18× “The question we certified in this appeal 1 raises the following issues: (1) whether an order entered pursuant to General Statutes § 52-422 2 reinstating an employee pending the resolution of the grievance procedure established by a collective bargaining agreement is a final…”
Insurity, Inc. v. Mut. Grp., Ltd., 260 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D. Conn. 2003).
· cites it 40× “and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-422 , 1 and the procedures contemplated by the respective statutes.”
Everspeed Enter. Ltd. v. Skaarup Shipping Int'l, 754 F. Supp. 2d 395 (D. Conn. 2010).
· cites it 17× “On April 9, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for pendente lite relief pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-422 and a memorandum in opposition to doc.”
Goodson v. State, 653 A.2d 177 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 12× “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to have considered a petition, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-422 of chapter 909, entitled “Arbitration Proceedings,” 1 requesting an order reinstating the named plaintiff,…”
Lemma v. York & Chapel, Corp., 204 Conn. App. 471 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 7× “During the pendency of the arbitra- tion proceeding, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s application for an order pendente lite pursuant to statute (§ 52-422) and for a prejudgment remedy. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court lacked subject…”
Nusbaum & Parrino, P.C. v. Collazo De Colon, 618 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D. Conn. 2009).
· cites it 4× “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-422. 3 . Although the Second Circuit was applying New York Civil Practice Law § 302 in Agency Rent A Car Sys.”
Loisel v. Rowe, 660 A.2d 323 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Most cases in which review has been undertaken despite a claim of mootness implicitly recognize the existence of functionally insurmountable time constraints.”
Metal Mgmt., Inc. v. Schiavone, 514 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Conn. 2007).
· cites it 6× “Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-422 The fact that an applicant for relief under § 422 is a party to a pending arbitration is the essential element conferring jurisdiction on the courts under the statute.”
Pickard v. Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs., 210 Conn. App. 788 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 14× “The plaintiff filed an application to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to statute (§ 52-418 or § 52-420), and requested that the court issue a pendente lite order pursuant to statute (§ 52-422) to, inter alia, open the arbitration proceedings.”
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.