(a) Upon publication of a notice in the Connecticut Law Journal, any commissioner of the Superior Court admitted to practice in this state for at least five years, who has civil litigation experience and who is willing and able to act as an arbitrator, may submit his name to the Office of the Chief Court Administrator for approval to be placed on a list of available arbitrators for one or more judicial districts. The criteria for selection and approval of arbitrators shall be promulgated by the judges of the Superior Court. Upon selection and approval by the Chief Court Administrator, for such term as he may fix, the arbitrators shall be sworn or affirmed to try justly and equitably all matters at issue submitted to them. The Chief Court Administrator, in his discretion, may at any time revoke any such approval.
(b) Each arbitrator shall receive one hundred dollars for each day he is assigned to a courthouse facility to conduct proceedings as an arbitrator and an additional twenty-five dollars for each decision filed with the court. In difficult or extraordinary cases, the Chief Court Administrator may, in his discretion, make a further allowance not to exceed two hundred dollars for services rendered attendant to but not part of the hearing.
(c) Such arbitrators shall have the power to: (1) Issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and for the production of books, papers and other evidence, such subpoenas to be served in the manner provided by law for service of subpoenas in a civil action and to be returnable to the arbitrators; (2) administer oaths or affirmations; and (3) determine the admissibility of evidence and the form in which it is to be offered.
(P.A. 82-441, S. 9, 23; P.A. 97-24, S. 3, 7.)
History: P.A. 82-441, S. 9 effective July 1, 1983; P.A. 97-24 amended Subsec. (a) by adding qualification re civil litigation experience, effective January 1, 1998.
Cited. 13 CA 189.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2023 · leading case:
Nunno v. Wixner, 778 A.2d 145 (Conn. 2001).
Nunno v. Wixner, 778 A.2d 145 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 6× “See General Statutes § 52-549u and Practice Book § 23-61.”
Khan v. Yale Univ., 347 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Nearly all the proceedings recognized by this court as quasi-judicial have provided a reasonable opportunity for the decision mak- ers or parties to subpoena or call witnesses.”
Larmel v. Metro North Commuter R.R. Co., 341 Conn. 332 (Conn. 2021).
· cites it 2× “’’ General Statutes § 52-549w (c). The parties in this case submit- ted various pieces of evidence to the arbitrator for con- sideration.”
Larmel v. Metro North Commuter R.R. Co. (Conn. 2022).
· cites it 4× “3 Contrary to the majority’s assertion, an arbitration held pursuant to § 52- 549u is not a ‘‘quasi-judicial’’ proceeding; nor is an arbitrator appointed pursuant to General Statutes § 52-549w ‘‘statutorily authorized to carry out functions that are judicial in nature.”
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.