(a) Process in civil actions, including transfers and applications for relief or removal, but not including summary process actions, brought to the Superior Court may be made returnable on any Tuesday in any month. The return day in any summary process action may be any week day, Monday through Saturday, except a holiday.
(b) All process shall be made returnable not later than two months after the date of the process and shall designate the place where court is to be held.
(1949 Rev., S. 7768; 1949, S. 3146d; 1967, P.A. 742, S. 1; 1969, P.A. 293, S. 1; P.A. 74-183, S. 80, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 124, 681; P.A. 82-160, S. 9.)
History: 1967 act added alternative of process being returnable on twelfth day following day of service and extended mandatory return date from “next but one” return day to “next but two” in first sentence, extended requirement place where court is to be held be designated where court is in New Haven county to all counties, and deleted provision that time within which pleadings be filed commence to run from first Tuesday of September following return day; 1969 act amended provisions re return of process to allow return in civil actions on any Tuesday rather than on twelfth day following day of service or on first Tuesday in any month and to require return not later than two months after date of process rather than on next return day or “next but two” and to delete provision which prohibited abatement of process in civil action because the term of the court was not stated in the process; P.A. 74-183 made special separate provision for return day in summary process actions, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-436 removed court of common pleas from purview of section reflecting transfer of all trial jurisdiction to superior court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 82-160 rephrased section and inserted Subsec. indicators.
Appeal from probate is an “action” under section. 63 C. 413; 76 C. 285. The right to begin a civil action at any time, which has always existed in this state, is not to be destroyed by statutory implication. 73 C. 229. Cited. Id., 562. Return day cannot be changed before service without reissuing writ. 74 C. 38. Meaning of phrase “to which it can be made returnable” as applied to appeal. 83 C. 677. Correction of mistake as to return day of probate appeal before service. 91 C. 110. Not applicable to motion to Supreme Court for order requiring trial court to make finding. 95 C. 691. Cited. 122 C. 153; 134 C. 605; 154 C. 416; 165 C. 435; Id., 440; 178 C. 472; 207 C. 547; 227 C. 848; 229 C. 618; 232 C. 392; 233 C. 352; 236 C. 330. Failure to return process in probate matter in accordance with section did not deprive Superior Court of jurisdiction over probate appeal. 289 C. 795.
Cited. 4 CA 209; 27 CA 590; 31 CA 793; judgment reversed, see 229 C. 618; 32 CA 335; 33 CA 6; 36 CA 635; judgment reversed, see 236 C. 330. Although section sets forth 2-month time limitation for return of process, the legislature, by enacting Sec. 52-72, clearly provided parties an avenue to correct a procedural error concerning such process. 61 CA 305.
Remedy for failure to return secondary process. 15 CS 307. Appeal from probate is a civil action within meaning of section. 18 CS 480. Amendment allowed where writ for personal injuries served within 1 year of injury inadvertently designated a return day less than 12 days from date of service. 20 CS 160. To allow motion to amend return day of writ to an earlier date would nullify Secs. 52-46 and 52-47. 28 CS 489. Cited. 29 CS 519; 40 CS 243.
Secs. 52-48a and 52-49. Service and return day of process in Circuit Court. Appeals from administrative officers, when returnable. Sections 52-48a and 52-49 are repealed.
(1949 Rev., S. 7770; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 38, 106; 1961, P.A. 14; 1963, P.A. 642, S. 86; 1969, P.A. 494; P.A. 74-183, S. 81, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 125, 681; P.A. 88-317, S. 28, 107; P.A. 89-174, S. 6, 7.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases, 1967–2019 · leading case:
Coppola v. Coppola, 707 A.2d 281 (Conn. 1998).
Coppola v. Coppola, 707 A.2d 281 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 9× “, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the return date was a Thursday rather than a Tuesday as required by General Statutes § 52-48 (a). 9 Id., 620.”
Olympia Mortg. Corp. v. Klein, 763 A.2d 1055 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 11× “On June 29, 1999, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that the plaintiffs service of process was insufficient because the original return date did not comply with the two month time limit set forth in General Statutes § 52-48…”
Concept Assocs., Ltd. v. Bd. of Tax Review, 642 A.2d 1186 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 6× “The plaintiffs summons specified as a return date May 28,1992, a Thursday, rather than May 26,1992, a Tuesday, in violation of General Statutes § 52-48. 4 *621 The plaintiffs tax appeal was served on the defendants on May 7, 1992, and was filed in the trial court on May 14,1992.”
Heussner v. Hayes, 961 A.2d 365 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 7× “Specifically, the conservators contended that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals because: contrary to the specifications of General Statutes § 52-48 (a), 5 which provides *799 that civil process “brought to the Superior Court may be made returnable on any…”
Haylett v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 541 A.2d 494 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 8× “We conclude that the specification in § 52-49 that appeals “from orders of commissioners and other administrative officers shall be taken to á return day of the superior court within sixty days after their allowance” is no longer operative and has been superseded by the general…”
Andover LP I v. Bd. of Tax Review, 655 A.2d 759 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 4× “618 , the plaintiffs, who erroneously specified a return date that fell on a Thursday, sought to amend the return date to fall on a Tuesday, as required under General Statutes § 52-48. 9 We concluded that amendment of process to correct a return date must be permitted as a…”
Haigh v. Haigh, 717 A.2d 837 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 6× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly dismissed the appeal on the grounds of (1) insufficient process because the appeal from probate was made returnable to the Superior Court on Monday, July 1, 1996, instead of on a Tuesday in violation of General…”
Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Ass'n v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 633 A.2d 305 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 3× “88-317, § 23; eliminated the forty-five day period for filing an appeal and substituted therefor the general return of process provisions of General Statutes §§ 52-48 7 and 52-46a. 8 Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the forty-five day requirement applies only to the…”
Am.'s Wholesale Lender v. Pagano, 866 A.2d 698 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 4× “2d 1186 (1994)], the plaintiffs, who erroneously specified a return date that fell on a Thursday, sought to amend the return date to fall on a Tuesday, as required under General Statutes § 52-48. We concluded that amendment of process to correct a return date must be permitted…”
Hartford Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Tucker, 423 A.2d 141 (Conn. 1979).
· cites it 3× “Before trial the defendant raised by a plea in abatement, 1 which was sustained, a “defect” in the process which, he claims now, the court allowed the plaintiff to amend at a time beyond the limit permitted by General Statutes § 52-48. 2 This claim is without merit.”
Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Voog, 659 A.2d 172 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 52-48. The court subsequently opened this judgment of dismissal, but the case again was dismissed for failure to prosecute with due diligence.”
Danziger v. Shaknaitis, 632 A.2d 1130 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 4× “3 claiming that the plaintiffs’ use of a Wednesday for a return day violated General Statutes § 52-48 4 which requires that the return day be a Tuesday.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-48(b) — 1 case
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.