Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-481

Abatement of manufacturer's nuisance. Temporary injunction

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If any manufacturer carries on his business, or exposes the material used therein, or refuse produced thereby, so as to constitute a nuisance to the public or to individuals, any persons aggrieved thereby may unite in a complaint to the superior court for the judicial district where the nuisance exists, for the discontinuance or abatement of the nuisance, making the manufacturer, if known to them, the defendant. If the manufacturer is not known, they may make the person in charge of the premises the defendant. Service on the person in charge shall be sufficient notice to any defendant living out of this state.

(b) Each complaint shall be heard at the first session of the court or promptly thereafter unless continued for cause. A continuance may be granted upon such conditions and with such provision for temporary relief as the court orders.

(c) If, after hearing, the court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief, it may make such order for the discontinuance or abatement of the nuisance, or for regulating the manner of conducting the business, as it finds to be necessary. If it appears that any such order is ineffectual to abate the nuisance or if it appears that the order is disobeyed or evaded, the court, upon such notice as it directs, may make such further order and provision for the enforcement of the original order or decree as may be deemed necessary.

(d) The Superior Court, or any judge thereof when the court is not in session, may, upon complaint, issue a temporary injunction against the continuance of any such nuisance until a final hearing may be had. If it is impracticable to stay the continuance of a nuisance by a temporary injunction or if the injunction is disobeyed or evaded, the court or judge may make and enforce such temporary order for the discontinuance of the nuisance until a final hearing, as may be deemed necessary.

(e) At least twenty-four hours' notice in writing of the time and place of making such a motion for temporary injunction shall be given to the defendants or some of them, if they are known and can be found in this state, and, if not, shall be left with the person in charge of the premises, if such person can be found.

(1949 Rev., S. 8217; 1967, P.A. 656, S. 51; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 127; P.A. 82-160, S. 178.)

History: 1967 act substituted “when the court is not sitting” for “in vacation”; P.A. 78-280 substituted “judicial district” for “county”; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators.

See Sec. 52-253 re costs in suits against manufacturers for nuisance.

What constitutes a nuisance of this character. 21 C. 218; 33 C. 121; 39 C. 426, 493; 100 C. 667. Petition must aver that petitioner is aggrieved. 39 C. 427. Effect upon complainant's family material question. 71 C. 647. No injunction against production of castor oil where court found no substantial violation of plaintiff's rights and use of defendant's plant was not unreasonable. 130 C. 485. History discussed; section does not give an exclusive remedy to the Superior Court in an action of nuisance; a statute creating a new remedy for an existing right does not preclude the use of existing common law remedies. 153 C. 661.

Statute is codification of existing law; it indirectly recognizes the doctrine of balancing conveniences. 11 CS 93. Persons of ordinary health and sensitiveness are to be considered in the determination of the existence of a nuisance. 22 CS 381.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1961–2000 · leading case: Krulikowski v. Polycast Corporation

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Krulikowski v. Polycast Corporation (1966) conn · cites it 10× “354 of the Practice Book, which is the form suggested for use in an action brought pursuant to General Statutes § 52-481 for relief against a factory nuisance.”

Cornerstone Realty, Inc. v. Dresser Rand Co. (1998) ctd · cites it 2× “COUNT NINE: NUISANCE In its ninth claim for relief, Cornerstone seeks an abatement order based on a claim of nuisance pursuant to Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-481. The defendants move to dismiss this claim on the ground that Cornerstone, as a prospective property owner, is without…”

Sealy Connecticut, Inc. v. Litton Industries, Inc. (1997) ctd · cites it 3× “§ 52-181 as to All Defendants Defendants argue that Count V should be dismissed because C.G.S. § 52-481, which provides for the abatement of a manufacturing nuisance, applies only to ongoing manufacturing operations, and not to entities whose former operations have resulted in…”

Sealy Connecticut, Inc. v. Litton Industries, Inc. (2000) ctd · cites it 2× “Sealy’s other state law claims are: absolute nuisance (Count Three); negligent nuisance (Count Four); Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-481 (Count Five); breach of lease as to Litton (Count Seven); waste as to Litton under Conn.”

Tufano v. Technical Rubber, Inc. (1961) connsuperct “In early March, it was assigned for a hearing on the question of the issuance of a temporary injunction, pursuant to § 52-481 of the General Statutes. At the request of the court, counsel for the defendant filed an answer and joined issue and the case was tried on its merits…”

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.