A person domiciled in or subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state or his executor or administrator, may be served with process without the state, in the same manner as service is made within the state, by any person authorized to make service by the laws of the state, territory, possession or country in which service is to be made or by any duly qualified attorney, solicitor, barrister or equivalent in such jurisdiction.
(1969, P.A. 635.)
See Sec. 52-59b re jurisdiction of courts over nonresidents, foreign partnerships and foreign voluntary associations.
Cited. 222 C. 906. Order of notice under Sec. 46b-46 is permissive, not mandatory; is not a condition precedent to effective in-hand service in another state pursuant to this section. 226 C. 1.
Cited. 27 CA 142; 31 CA 569.
Meaning of “same manner” provision of section is that methods of service of process under Sec. 52-57 may be used to serve process on defendant outside state. 33 CS 562. Cited. 39 CS 198.
Secs. 52-57b, 52-58, 52-59 and 52-59a. Service of process upon: Partnerships; corporations, by advertisement or otherwise; voluntary associations; nonresident and foreign partnerships doing business in Connecticut. Sections 52-57b, 52-58, 52-59 and 52-59a are repealed.
(1949, Rev., S. 7775, 7776; 1959, P.A. 634; 1961, P.A. 327, S. 92; 517, S. 39; 1967, P.A. 81; 1969, P.A. 552, S. 1; 744, S. 3; P.A. 79-336; P.A. 82-160, S. 259.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
Anderson v. Schibi, 364 A.2d 853 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1976).
Anderson v. Schibi, 364 A.2d 853 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1976).
· cites it 12× “Those defendants claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction because they were not personally served nor was any of their property attached.”
Cato v. Cato, 626 A.2d 734 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 8× “We granted his petition, limited to the following issue: “Was the divided Appellate Court correct in holding in a claim for dissolution that General Statutes § 52-57a allows for in-hand service of process by a Texas sheriff on a nonresident defendant in Texas without an order of…”
Cato v. Cato, 605 A.2d 558 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 9× “We conclude that General Statutes § 52-57a 4 allows for in-hand service outside of Connecticut on a resident of another state if all of the other requirements of § 46b-46 (b) have been satisfied.”
Cortes v. Cotton, 626 A.2d 1306 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The *574 defendant’s reliance on General Statutes § 52-57a is equally flawed.”
Bank Mart v. Langley, 474 A.2d 491 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1984).
· cites it 2× “The precious right to be heard, however, far outweighs the additional burden involved for investigation, personal service by a process server in a foreign jurisdiction (General Statutes § 52-57a), and the like.”
Pelletier v. Goodnoff, 727 A.2d 277 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 3× “” General Statutes § 52-57a. Service of process in Connecticut is governed by General Statutes § 52-57, which provides in relevant part: “(a) Except as otherwise provided, process in any civil action shall be served by leaving a true and attested *566 copy of it, including the…”
Cato v. Cato, 608 A.2d 691 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 2× “142 , is granted, limited to the following question: “Was the divided Appellate Court correct in holding in a claim for dissolution that General Statutes § 52-57a allows for in-hand service of process by a Texas sheriff on a nonresident defendant in Texas without an order of…”
Beri, No. 3:25-cv-01792 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2026).
· cites it 2× “However, the plaintiff has come forward with significant evidence that, under Connecticut law, service pursuant to C.G.S. § 52-57a can be adequate if left outside the door of the abode.”
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.