Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 916 — Injunctions
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-477 (2026)

Permanent injunction; stay pending appeal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
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 court having jurisdiction, unless the court is of the opinion that great and irreparable injury will be done by such stay or that such application was made only for delay and not in good faith.

(1949 Rev., S. 8213; P.A. 74-183, S. 284, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 244, 681; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29, S. 49, 82.)

History: P.A. 74-183 added reference to decisions of superior court to conform to changes in Sec. 54-476, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-436 deleted reference to superior court decisions, also in conformity with Sec. 54-476 changes, effective July 1, 1978; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29 deleted reference to supreme court and substituted reference to the court “having jurisdiction”.

Cited. 186 C. 725; 192 C. 1; 197 C. 141; 215 C. 82; 230 C. 641; 233 C. 254; Id., 281.

Not inconsistent with Secs. 661, 662 and 663 of Practice Book. 15 CS 273. A permanent injunction may be modified or dissolved at any time even after the term in which the judgment was rendered, and such judgment may be opened even though an appeal from it is pending and execution has been stayed. 21 CS 244.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1963–2017 · leading case: Tomasso Bros. v. October Twenty-Four, Inc., 646 A.2d 133 (Conn. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tomasso Bros. v. October Twenty-Four, Inc., 646 A.2d 133 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 11× “Under both statutes, a party must apply for a stay and the trial court must make a determination whether to stay the judgment.”
Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 496 A.2d 476 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 5× “4 Counsel for the plaintiffs countered that, in accordance with General Statutes § 52-477, the trial court’s injunctive order had not been stayed unless the trial court specifically entered a stay pursuant to an application therefor by the defendants.”
Grovenburg v. Rustle Meadow Assocs., LLC, 165 A.3d 193 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 4× “This court therefore remanded the matter to the trial court with direction to (1) consider whether a stay of such relief should be imposed in this case under *40 General Statutes § 52-477 20 and (2) to reconsider whether the automatic stay should be terminated pursuant to…”
Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 469 A.2d 1201 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-477. Upon a motion for review of that order this court denied relief.”
Carothers v. Capozziello, 574 A.2d 1268 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 2× “The actions and decision of the trial court-are somewhat more ambiguous in light of the fact that actual payment of the civil penalties was subject to an automatic stay of execution; Practice Book § 4046; while the injunctive relief would have continued in effect pending the…”
Comm'r of Motor Vehs. v. DeMilo, 659 A.2d 148 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-477 provides that an application for such a stay is necessary in the case of an appeal from a judgment for a permanent injunction, such as in this case.”
Hartford Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tucker, 469 A.2d 778 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-477. For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court continued to have jurisdiction to enforce the receivership during the appeal of the underlying foreclosures to this court.”
DeMilo v. Comm'r of Motor Vehs., 659 A.2d 162 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-477 provides that an application for such a stay is necessary in the case of an appeal from a judgment for a permanent injunction, such as in this case.”
City of Cincinnati, Ohio v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc., 659 F. Supp. 259 (D. Conn. 1986). · cites it 2× “” Both parties agree that the statute of limitations for this count is controlled by Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-477, which states that “No action founded upon a tort shall be brought but within three years from the date of the act or omission complained of.”
Muti v. Collins, 194 A.2d 450 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1963). · cites it 2× “This statute probably is not applicable here instead 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…”
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.