When a temporary injunction has been granted and upon final hearing judgment has been rendered adverse to its continuance, either party may apply to the court rendering the judgment, representing that he intends to appeal the case to the court having jurisdiction and praying that the temporary injunction may be continued until the final decision therein. Unless the court is of the opinion that great and irreparable injury will be done by the further continuance of the injunction, or that the application was made only for delay and not in good faith, the court shall continue the injunction until a final decision is rendered in the court having jurisdiction.
(1949 Rev., S. 8212; P.A. 74-183, S. 283, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 243, 681; P.A. 82-160, S. 176; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29, S. 48, 82.)
History: P.A. 74-183 amended section to require that appeals be taken to appellate session of superior court if judgment was entered in court of common pleas, retaining supreme court as appellate court for judgments rendered in superior court, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-436 returned all appeals to supreme court jurisdiction, reflecting transfer of all trial jurisdiction to superior court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29 deleted reference to supreme court and added reference to the court “having jurisdiction”.
“Upon final hearing” does not refer to decision on motion to dissolve temporary injunction, but to final judgment. 128 C. 294. Order dissolving temporary injunction is not a final judgment from which an appeal lies. Id., 295. Cited. 134 C. 362; 140 C. 267. Provisions of Ch. 562 are such that section is not applicable as regards injunctions in labor disputes, and to that extent has been impliedly repealed. 134 C. 622. Cited. 186 C. 725; 230 C. 622; Id., 641.
Cited. 29 CA 105.
Not inconsistent with Secs. 661, 662 and 663 of Practice Book; purpose of section discussed. 15 CS 272.
Notes of Decisions
Tomasso Bros. v. October Twenty-Four, Inc., 646 A.2d 133 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 9× “Furthermore, practical considerations lead us to conclude that in the case of both prohibitory and mandatory injunctions, the enjoined party ought to be required to request the trial court to rule on a stay pending appeal, and that absent such a request, the injunction ought to…”
Dornfried v. October Twenty-Four, Inc., 646 A.2d 772 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Because this decision permitted the defendants to continue indefinitely to operate an active trap rock quarry in an R-40 zone, the plaintiff filed a motion to continue the temporary injunction pursuant to General Statutes § 52-476. Following the denial of this motion by the…”
Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 496 A.2d 476 (Conn. 1985).
“to 1983) § 52-477 provides: “When judgment has been rendered for a permanent injunction ordering either party to perform any act, the court, upon an application similar to that mentioned in section 52-476, shall stay the operation of such injunction until a final decision in the…”
Grovenburg v. Rustle Meadow Assocs., LLC, 165 A.3d 193 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“20 General Statutes § 52-477 provides: "When judgment has been rendered for a permanent injunction ordering either party to perform any act, the court, upon an application similar to that mentioned in section 52-476, shall stay the operation of such injunction until a final…”
Muti v. Collins, 194 A.2d 450 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1963).
“of § 411 of the Practice Book, but the view might be taken that by ordering the taking of these depositions the court has, to some extent, issued an order similar to a mandatory injunction, and §52-477 provides that “[Wjhen judgment has been rendered for a permanent injunction…”
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.