Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-516 (2026)

Commencement of action of replevin. Prejudgment remedy

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) An action of replevin shall be commenced by a writ of summons or attachment, describing the parties, the court to which it is returnable and the time and place of appearance. The writ shall be signed as in other civil actions and may run into any judicial district.

(b) An action of replevin, to the extent that it includes a prejudgment remedy as defined in section 52-278a, shall not be allowed unless the provisions of sections 52-278a to 52-278f, inclusive, are complied with.

(1949 Rev., S. 8252; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 127; P.A. 82-160, S. 203.)

History: P.A. 78-280 substituted “judicial district” for “county”; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and added Subsec. (b) prohibiting actions of replevin that include prejudgment remedies as defined in Sec. 52-278a unless the provisions of Secs. 52-278a to 52-278f, inclusive, are complied with.

See Sec. 51-15 re rules of procedure in certain civil actions.

Cited. 66 C. 549. Writ without complaint is a nullity; not amendable; remedy is to erase from docket; defendant has no right to plead further or to damages. 97 C. 399; 98 C. 229. Effect of returning writ to wrong court. 105 C. 673. Misdescription of property replevied; cured by provision in original conditional bill of sale permitting vendor on default to enter and take possession. Id., 675. Cited. 222 C. 361.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1992–1992 · leading case: Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A.2d 652 (Conn. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A.2d 652 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 6× “10 The trial court’s interpretation, moreover, was firmly rooted in the statutory language and was not, as the defendants’ argument suggests, a strained attempt to *370 salvage an obviously unsalvageable statutory scheme.”

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.