Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 911 — Paternity Proceedings
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-435 (2026)

Bastardy complaint by mother

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 52-435 is repealed.

(1949 Rev., S. 8178, 8321; 1951, S. 3208d; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 128; 639, S. 3; 1963, P.A. 602, S. 1; February, 1965, P.A. 406, S. 8.)

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1959–2006 · leading case: Kuser v. Orkis, 362 A.2d 943 (Conn. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kuser v. Orkis, 362 A.2d 943 (Conn. 1975). · cites it 8× “Pursuant to § 52-435, a provision of chapter 911, a warrant was issued by the plaintiff’s attorney as a commissioner of the Superior Court for the arrest of the defendant.”
Robertson v. Apuzzo, 365 A.2d 824 (Conn. 1976). · cites it 2× “In any event, in 1965 (prior to the commencement of the present proceedings), the statute providing for “Bastardy Proceedings” (General Statutes § 52-435) was repealed and the basic statute pursuant to which the present proceedings were instituted was enacted *375 as § 52-435a…”
Brown v. Cato, 162 A.2d 175 (Conn. 1960). · cites it 3× “639, § 3 [General Statutes § 52-435]). The motion was denied and the ease was tried before a jury, which found the defendant guilty.”
Stroman v. Gilbert, 197 A.2d 99 (Conn. App. Ct. 1963). · cites it 6× “This is a bastardy proceeding, brought under § 52-435 of the General Statutes, wherein the only issue before the trial court was that of probable cause.”
Pelak v. Karpa, 151 A.2d 333 (Conn. 1959). · cites it 2× “His basic claim is that our bastardy procedure is inapplicable, and our courts have no jurisdiction of a bastardy action, where both the mother and her child are nonresidents.”
Turner v. Richardson, 162 A.2d 177 (Conn. 1960). · cites it 2× “639, §3 [General Statutes §52-435]). The-essential facts are as follows: On December 1.”
Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 909 A.2d 89 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006). “1963) § 52-435 with Public Acts 1965, No. 406, now codified generally as General Statutes § 46b-160 et seq.”
Terrasi v. Andrews, 217 A.2d 75 (Conn. App. Ct. 1965). · cites it 2× “In this action, brought under General Statutes § 52-435, the plaintiff offered to prove and claimed to have proved that a child was born to her on April 20, 1962, and that the defendant was the father of that child.”
Estey v. Mawdsley, 217 A.2d 493 (Conn. App. Ct. 1966). · cites it 2× “This action was brought under § 52-435 of the General Statutes. 1 The issues were *492 found for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed, assigning error in the court’s finding and in its conclusion that a married woman could maintain a cause of action under the statute.”
Fulmore v. Deveaux, 220 A.2d 462 (Conn. App. Ct. 1966). “The most noteworthy changes in the law were the elimination of the quasi-criminal features of arrest and preliminary examination (see repealed §52-435), often criticized as unduly harsh, and their replacement by a modified version of the Uniform Act on Paternity.”
Franklin v. Congelosi, 273 A.2d 291 (Conn. App. Ct. 1970). “II The defendant further contends that the paternity statutes (G-eneral Statutes §§ 52-435 — 52-445) afford the plaintiff an exclusive remedy and that these statutes preclude “the effectuation of such a remedy under the guise of a contract action.”
Waters v. Greer, 203 A.2d 126 (Conn. App. Ct. 1964). · cites it 3× “Under our procedure, the defendant is accorded a preliminary hearing in the Circuit Court (Gfeneral Statutes § 52-435, as amended by Public Acts 1959, Nos.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.