A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to the procedures used in obtaining a writ of injunction in Connecticut

SEE ALSO:

·         Table 1: Types and forms of injunctions

·         Table 2: Notice required for ex parte injunction

·         Table 3: Extraordinary nature of injunctive relief

·         Table 4: Standards for issuing of temporary injunction

DEFINITIONS:

·         Equitable proceeding: “Any judge of any court of equitable jurisdiction may, on motion, grant and enforce a writ of injunction, according to the course of proceedings in equity, in any action for equitable relief when the relief is properly demandable, returnable to any court, when the court is not in session.

Upon granting of the writ, the writ shall be of force until the sitting of the court and its further order thereon unless sooner lawfully dissolved.” Conn. Gen. Stats. § 52-471(a) (2003).

·         Verified complaint: “No injunction may be issued unless the facts stated in the application therefor are verified by the oath of the plaintiff or of some competent witness.” Conn. Gen. Stats. § 52-471(b) (2003).

·         Bond on issue of temporary injunction: “No temporary injunction may be granted, except in favor of the state or of a public officer thereof in respect to any matter of a public nature, until the party making application therefor gives bond, with surety satisfactory to the court or judge granting the injunction, to the opposite party, to answer all damages in case the plaintiff fails to prosecute the action in which the injunction is applied for to effect; provided a bond need not be required when, for good cause shown, the court or a judge is of the opinion that a temporary injunction ought to issue without bond.”  Conn. Gen. Stats. § 52-472 (2003).

·          

STATUTES:

·         Conn. Gen. Stats. (2003)

Chapter 916. Injunctions

§ 52-471. Granting of injunction

§ 52-472. Bond on issue of temporary injunction

§ 52-473. Injunctions may be granted immediately or after notice

§ 52-474. Interested persons may appear and be heard

§ 52-475. Dissolution of temporary injunction

§ 52-476. Continuance pending appeal

§ 52-477. Permanent injunction; stay pending appeal

§ 52-478. Removal of stay or dissolution of injunction

§ 52-479. Reservation for advice. Dissolution of injunction

§ 52-480. Injunction against malicious erection fo structure

§ 52-481. Abatement of manufacturer’s nuisance. Temporary injunction

§ 52-482. Injunction against manufacturing fish oil or mature

§ 52-483. Injunction against sale on execution; adjournment of sale.

COURT RULES:

·         Conn. Practice Book (2004 ed.)

§ 4-5. Notice Required for Ex Parte Temporary Injunctions

§ 11-9.Disclosure of Previous Applications

FORMS:

·         2 Conn. Practice Book  ( October 1992)

Form 104.4. Injunction Against Nuisance - Maintenance of Disposal Area ( Figure 1)

·         14A Am Jur Pleading & Practice (2002) Injunctions

§ 6. Complaint, petition, or declaration—For permanent injunction—Seeking temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction--General form

§ 50. Notice of motion or application—For temporary restraining order

§ 51. Notice of motion or application—For preliminary injunction

§ 61. Order—To show cause why preliminary injunction should not issue-—With temporary restraining order—General form

§ 88. Bond or undertaking—For temporary restraining order

§ 94. Notice—Motion for additional bond for preliminary injunction

§ 95. Order—Requiring additional bond for preliminary injunction

CASES:

·         Department Of Transportation v. Pacitti, 43 Conn. App. 52, 57, 682 A.2d 136 (1996). “The decision to grant or deny an injunction is discretionary and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.  Crabtree v. Coyle, 19 Conn. App. 208, 211, 561 A.2d 455 (1989).  In deciding, the trial court must consider the equities, including the gravity and wilfulness of the violation, as well as the potential harm.”

·         Wad Realty, Inc. v. Licamele, 1 Conn. App. 371, 372-373, 472 A.2d 352 (1984). “The plaintiff sought injunctive relief. It had the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and the lack of an adequate remedy at law . . . . The plaintiff failed to prove lack of an adequate remedy at law. The court's provision for an alternative judgment of money damages is indicative of the presence of an adequate remedy at law.”

·         DeCecco v. Beach, 174 Conn. 29, 33, 381 A.2d 543 (1977). “The plaintiff was entitled to an injunction for the removal of the last four sections of the fence closest to the river, under the statute providing for the removal of any structure erected by a landowner with malicious intent to injure the owner or lessee of the adjoining property. Under a proper finding of facts, based upon the evidence presented, including an on-site view of the premises, the trial court was justified in concluding that the defendant acted from malicious motives, with a design to injure the plaintiff unnecessarily in the use and enjoyment of her property.”

·         Andrzejczyk v. Advo System, Inc., 146 Conn. 428, 429-430, 151 A.2d 881 (1959). “The defendant has appealed from a judgment enjoining it from erecting a fence which prevents the plaintiffs from using a driveway which is in part on the defendant's land and in part on land of the plaintiffs and extends from the street to the rear of their premises.”

 “To acquire a right of way by prescription, there must be a user which is open, visible, continuous and uninterrupted for fifteen years and made under a claim of right.”  (p. 431).

“In the instant case, the court could properly draw the inference from the situation of the parties and the nature and extent of the user that it was in fact adverse and under a claim of right.” (p. 432).

·         Gage v. Schavoir, 100 Conn. 652, 663-664, 124 A. 535 (1924). “The plaintiffs' third point, that the violation of the restrictions by them in matters claimed to be trivial is no defense to greater violations by defendant, is correct to the extent that such violations are not a complete equitable defense, and the trial court did not hold that they were such, but did consider them as evidencing the mind and disposition of plaintiffs as bearing upon the question of laches, in noticing which they will be considered by us

·         Empire Transportation Co. v. Johnson, 76 Conn. 79, 82, 55 A. 587 (1903). “The mere allegation that irreparable injury would ensue is, however, not sufficient, unless facts are stated showing the apprehension to be well founded.”

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

·        42 Am Jur 2d (2000).  Injunctions

§§ 12-45. Principles governing issuance or denial

[§§231-270. Action or application for injunction; Pleading and Practice

·         43A CJS (2004) Injunctions

§§ 19-26. Principles governing issuance

§§ 441-457. Damages resulting from wrongful issuance of injunction

·         Annotation, Furnishing Of Bond As Prerequisite To Issuance Of Temporary Restraining Order, 73 ALR2d 854 (1960).

·         Annotation, Court’s Lack Of Jurisdiction Of Subject Matter In Granting Injunction As A Defense In Action On Injunction Bond, 82 ALR2d 1064 (1962).

·         Annotation, Dismissal Of Injunction Action Or Bill Without Prejudice As Breach Of Injunction Bond, 91 ALR2d 1312 (1963).

·         Annotation, Period For Which Damages Are Recoverable Or Are Computed Under Injunction Bond, 95 ALR2d 1190 (1964).

·         Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Recovery Of Damages Resulting From Wrongful Issuance Of Injunction As Limited To Amount Of Bond, 30 ALR4th 273 (1984).

·         Annotation, Appealability Of Order Refusing To Grant Or Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order, 19 ALR3d 459 (1968).

·         Annotation, Furnishing Of Bond As Prerequisite To Issuance Of Temporary Restraining Order, 73 ALR2d 854 (1960).

TEXTS & TREATISES:

·        2 Renee Bevacqua Bollier and Susan V. Busby, Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure (3^rd ed. 2002).

Chapter 19. Extraordinary procedures

a.        General

b.       Jurisdiction

c.        Complaint

d.       Order to show cause

e.        Ex parte hearing

f.         Bond

g.       Issuance

h.       Continuance, modification and dissolution

i.         Stay or continuance of injunction pending appeal

j.         Violation of injunction

·        2 Ralph P. Dupont, Dupont on Connecticut Civil Procedure (2003 ed.).

Chapter 23. Miscellaneous remedies and procedures

§ 23-50.17. Granting of injunction

§ 23-50.18. Verified complaint required

§ 23-50.19. Bond on issue of temporary injunction

§ 23-50.20. Injunctions may be granted immediately or after notice

§ 23-50.21. Temporary injunction issued Ex Parte

§ 23-50.22. Interested person may appear and be heard

§ 23-50.23. Intervention; Injunction proceedings

§ 23-50.24. Dissolution of temporary injunction

§ 23-50.25. Motion to dissolve temporary injunction before retrun date

§ 23-50.26. Continuance pending appeal

§ 23-50.27. Permanent injunction; Stay pending appeal

§ 23-50.28. Removal of stay or dissolution of injunction

§ 23-50.29. Reservation for advice; Dissolution of injunction

·        2 Edward L. Stephenson. Connecticut Civil Procedure (2d ed., 1981).

Chapter 18. Specialized Procedures

§ 267. Injunctions

§ 268. Temporary injunctions

§ 269. Status of temporary injunction pending appeal

§ 270. Modification or dissolution of permanent injunction

§ 271. Violation of injunction

COMPILER:

Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560.

Types and Forms

of Injunctions

Restraining Order

Temporary  Restraining Order (TRO)

·         “issued . . . for the purpose of restraining the defendant for what should be a very brief period pending notice and hearing on a application for a temporary injunction.” Inhabitants of Town of Lincolnville v. Perry, 104 A.2d 884 (1954).

For example, “On April 20, 1999, the plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the restart of unit 2 until after the trial court had ruled on the application for a temporary injunction. Judge Hale granted the plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order, pending completion and presentation of all the evidence. After thirteen days of testimony, Judge Hale denied the plaintiffs' application for temporary and permanent injunctive relief, and dissolved the temporary restraining order.” Fish Unlimited v. Northeast Utilities Svc. Co., 254 Conn. 1, 10, 756 A.2d 262 (2000).

·         Sometimes granted ex parte (without notice) to the opposing party. See Table 2 for Notice requirements.

Temporary Injunction

·         “A temporary injunction is a preliminary order of the court, granted at the outset or during the pendency of an action, forbidding the performance of the threatened acts described in the original complaint until the rights of the parties respecting them shall have been finally determined by the court.” Deming v. Bradstreet, 85 Conn. 650, 659, 84 A. 116 (1912).

·         “ The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo and protect the moving party from immediate and irreparable harm until the rights of the parties can be determined after a full hearing on the merits.” Fleet National Bank v. Burke, 45 Conn. Sup. 566, 569, 727 A.2d 823 (1998).

·         “No temporary injunction may be granted without notice to the adverse party unless it clearly appears from the specific facts shown by affidavit or by verified complaint that irreparable loss or damage will result to the plaintiff before the matter can be heard on notice. It shall be sufficient, on such application for a temporary injunction, to present to the court or judge the original complaint containing the demand for an injunction, duly verified, without further complaint, application or motion in writing.” Conn. Gen. Stats. § 52-473(b) (2003).

Permanent Injunction

“Although there are three types of injunctions, we find it necessary here to highlight only one, the permanent injunction. A ‘permanent injunction’ issues after a court has rendered a final determination on the merits . . . . Notwithstanding the usual meaning of the term ‘permanent,’ a permanent injunction does not necessarily ‘last indefinitely.’ Instead, it ‘is one granted by the judgment which finally disposes of the injunction suit.’” B & P v. Overland, 758 A.2d 1026 (Md. App. 2000).

Notice Required for Ex Parte Injunction

Conn. Practice Book § 4-5 (2004 ed.)

(a)

No temporary injunction shall be granted without notice to each opposing party unless the applicant certifies one of the following to the court in writing:

(1)     facts showing that within a reasonable time prior to presenting the application the applicant gave notice to each opposing party of the time when and the place where the application would be presented and provided a copy of the application; or

(2)      the applicant in good faith attempted but was unable to give notice to an opposing party or parties, specifying the efforts made to contact such party or parties; or

  (3) facts establishing good cause why the applicant should not be required to give notice to each opposing party.

(b)

When an application for a temporary injunction is granted without notice or without a hearing, the court shall schedule an expeditious hearing as to whether the temporary injunction should remain in effect. Any temporary injunction which was granted without a hearing shall automatically expire thirty days following its issuance, unless the court, following a hearing, determines that said injunction should remain in effect.

(c)

For purposes of this rule, notice to the opposing party means notice to the opposing party's attorney if the applicant knows who the opposing party's attorney is; if the applicant does not know who the opposing party's attorney is, notice shall be given to the opposing party. If the temporary injunction is sought against the state of Connecticut, a city or town, or an officer or agency thereof, notice shall be given to the attorney general or to the city or town attorney or corporation counsel, as the case may be.

(d)

This section shall not apply to applications for relief from physical abuse filed pursuant to Gen. Stat. Sec. § 46b-15 or to motions for orders of temporary custody in juvenile matters filed pursuant to Gen. Stat. § 46b-129.

Extraordinary Nature of Injunctive Relief

An injunction is the exercise of an extraordinary power

Fleet National Bank v. Burke, 45 Conn. Sup. 566, 570, 727 A.2d 823 (1998).  “‘The issuance of an injunction is the exercise of an extraordinary power which rests within the sound discretion of the court. . . . Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222 (1971). See also International Ass'n. of Firefighters, Local 786 v. Serrani, 26 Conn. App. 610, 616, 602 A.2d 1067 (1992). This is so, even where the danger of irreparable injury has been demonstrated. Hartford v. American Arbitration Assn. , 174 Conn. 472, 477, 391 A.2d 137 (1978).

Moreover, we must keep in mind the doctrine that "[c]ourts will act with extreme caution where the granting of injunctive relief will result in embarrassment

Page 571 to the operations of government.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted). Wood v. Wilton, 156 Conn. 304, 310, 240 A.2d 904 (1968).”

No adequate remedy at law

Avalonbay Communities, Inc. v. Orange, 256 Conn. 557, 582, 775 A.2d 284 (2001). “Because there is no statutory right to appeal from the adoption of a project plan under chapter 132 of the General Statutes, there is no adequate remedy at law. See Stocker v. Waterbury, 154 Conn. 446, 449, 226 A.2d 514 (1967). In such a statutory context, where the trial court has made factual findings of bad faith on the part of the defendants, the granting of an injunction may be proper.”

Will suffer irreparable harm if not granted

Karls v. Alexandra, 179 Conn. 390, 402, 426 A.2d 784 (1980). “The extraordinary nature of injunctive relief requires that the harm complained of is occurring or will occur if the injunction is not granted. Although an absolute certainty is not required, it must appear that there is a substantial probability that but for the issuance of the injunction, the party seeking it will suffer irreparable harm.”

Laches

Sound discretion of the Court

Castonguay v. Plourde, 46 Conn. App. 251, 265, 699 A.2d 226, cert. den. 243 Conn. 931 (1997). “ The defendants assert that the plaintiffs' action for injunctive relief is barred by the doctrine of laches.”

“In rejecting the laches defense, the trial court specifically found that the plaintiffs had "notified the defendants as soon as it became evident to them that their rights were not being protected [and] that their view was going to be spoiled by the massive roof of the new house directly in their panoramic view."[fn9] We see no reason to disturb these findings.” (p. 266).

“The defendants claim that the injury to them resulting from the injunction is greatly disproportionate to the injury of which the plaintiffs complain. The granting of an injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and ‘[i]n exercising its discretion, the court . . . may consider and balance the injury complained of with that which will result from interference by injunction.’  Moore v. Serafin, 163 Conn. 1, 6, 301 A.2d 238 (1972) . . . ‘The relief granted must be compatible with the equities of the case.’ Walton v. New Hartford, 223 Conn. 155, 167, 612 A.2d 1153 (1992) . . . . The action of the trial court will not be disturbed unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion.”

Standards for Issuance of Temporary Injunction

Fleet National Bank v. Burke,

45 Conn. Sup. 566, 569-571, 727 A.2d 823 (1998)

Brief review of standards

A brief review of the well settled principles regarding the issuance of a temporary injunction would be helpful in placing this matter in context. (p. 569).

Primary purpose of a temporary injunction

Three factors

"A temporary injunction is a preliminary order of the court, granted at the outset or during the pendency of an action, forbidding the performance of the threatened acts described in the original complaint until the rights of the parties respecting them shall have been finally determined by the court." Deming v. Bradstreet, 85 Conn. 650, 659, 84 A. 116 (1912). The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo and protect the moving party from immediate and irreparable harm until the rights of the parties can be determined after a full hearing on the merits. Olcott v. Pendleton, 128 Conn. 292, 295, 22 A.2d 633 (1941). The plaintiffs, to be entitled to such relief, must show: (1) probable success on the merits of their claim; (2) irreparable harm or loss; and (3) a favorable balancing of the results or harm which may be caused to one party or the other, as well as to the public, by the granting or denying of the temporary relief requested. See Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 196 Conn. 451, 457-58, 493 A.2d 229 (1985) (Griffin Hospital 1).

Exercise of extraordinary power

Extreme caution

"The issuance of an injunction is the exercise of an extraordinary power which rests within the sound discretion of the court. . . . Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222 (1971). See also International Ass'n. of Firefighters, Local 786 v. Serrani, 26 Conn. App. 610, 616, 602 A.2d 1067 (1992). This is so, even where the danger of irreparable injury has been demonstrated. Hartford v. American Arbitration Assn. , 174 Conn. 472, 477, 391 A.2d 137 (1978).

Moreover, we must keep in mind the doctrine that "[c]ourts will act with extreme caution where the granting of injunctive relief will result in embarrassment to the operations of government." (Internal quotation marks omitted). Wood v. Wilton, 156 Conn. 304, 310, 240 A.2d 904 (1968).

Although the plaintiffs did not furnish a bond pursuant to General Statutes § 52-472,the court will assume, without deciding, that the plaintiffs have shown good cause for a waiver of a bond.

Danger of sustaining substantial and immediate injury

The court must analyze the facts proved by the plaintiffs in the light of the aforementioned principles, and determine, in the exercise of its discretion, whether a temporary injunction against the commissioner is warranted. The plaintiffs must show that they are in danger of sustaining substantial and immediate injury if the injunction is not granted. See Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). Past injury alone is insufficient, although it may support the likelihood of future recurrences; but, to obtain an injunction, the plaintiffs must demonstrate either present continuing injury or the likelihood of future injury. O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974).

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to modification and dissolution of a writ of injunction in Connecticut, including permanent injunctions.

DEFINITIONS:

Dissolution or Modification

·         Before return day: “When a temporary injunction is granted in any action before its return day, it may be dissolved or modified by the Superior Court or by any judge of the Superior Court. A written motion for dissolution shall be preferred before the return day.” Conn. Gen. Stats. § 52-475(a) (2003). 

·         “After the return day, a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction shall be addressed to the court location in which the action is pending, or, if the court at such location is not actually in session, to a judge thereof. If the judge is unable for any reason to hear the motion, it shall be heard and determined by the superior court at another location or by any other judge of the Superior Court.” Conn. Gen. Stats. § 52-475(b) (2003) [Emphasis added]

Disclosure of Previous Applications

·         “Upon making a motion or application to the court, or to a judge thereof before the return day of the action, (1) for an order appointing a receiver or an injunction, or (2) for a modification or dissolution of any such order or injunction, or (3) for issuance of a prejudgment remedy, or (4) for a reduction or dissolution of an attachment, if a motion or application for the same order or injunction has been previously made to the court or to any judge, such motion or application shall so recite. Nothing in this section shall be so construed as to preclude the making of more than one motion or application for the same or similar order or injunction or affect in any way the right of the applicant to have such motion or application passed upon on its merits.” Conn. Practice Book (2004 ed.)

STATUTES:

·         Conn. Gen. Stats. (2003)

Chapter 916. Injunctions

§ 52-475. Dissolution of temporary injunction

§ 52-476. Continuance pending appeal

§ 52-477. Permanent injunction; stay pending appeal

§ 52-478. Removal of stay or dissolution of injunction

§ 52-479. Reservation for advice. Dissolution of injunction

COURT RULES:

·         Conn. Practice Book (2004 ed.)

§ 4-5. Notice Required for Ex Parte Temporary Injunctions

§ 11-9.Disclosure of Previous Applications

FORMS:

·         2 Conn. Practice Book  ( October 1997)

Form 106.18. Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injunction (Figure 2)

·         14A Am Jur Pleading & Practice (2002) Injunctions

§ 99. Notice of motion—For stay of injunction pending appeal

§ 100. Notice of motion—To dissolve or modify temporary restraining order

§ 102. Notice of motion—To extend temporary restraining order

§ 103. Notice of motion—To dismiss complaint, or in the alternative, to deny motion for temporary restraining order

§ 104. Notice of motion—To dissolve preliminary injunction—Failure to post bond

§ 105. Affidavit—Stay of injunction pending appeal

§ 106. Affidavit—In support of motion for extension of temporary restraining order

§ 107. Motion—To dissolve preliminary injunction—Failure to post bond

§ 108. Notice of motion and motion—To vacate or modify preliminary injunction—By defendant

§ 109. Motion—To modify permanent injunction—By defendant

§ 110. Motion—To dismiss complaint or, in the alternative, to deny motion for temporary restraining order

§ 112. Order—Stay of injunction pending appeal

§ 113. Order—Continuing temporary restraining order—Pursuant to continuance of hearing on application for preliminary injunction—Notice of hearing not given

§ 115. Order—Dissolving temporary restraining order—Denying preliminary injunction

§ 116. Order—Modifying preliminary injunction

§ 117. Order—Denying motion to modify preliminary injunction—Continuing unmodified preliminary injunctin in force

§ 118. Order—Dissolving preliminary injunction—On defendant’s motion

§ 122. Consent order—Extending temporary order

CASES:

·         Hilton v. City of New Haven, 233 Conn. 701, 725, 661 A.2d 973 (1995). “ New Haven's first claim is that, in responding to its 1992 motion for reconsideration, the trial court improperly failed to dismiss the 1989 injunctive order as moot. In particular, New Haven argues that the changes implemented by Spec. Sess. P.A. 92-16 rendered moot the 1989 order and deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction to continue to monitor New Haven's compliance with the statute.”

Although it is true that the scope of New Haven's statutory obligation to provide shelter is substantially limited by Spec. Sess. P.A. 92-16, the amendment does not alter the court's ability to grant relief for New Haven's failure to comply with the mandates of the new statute. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly denied New Haven's request to dismiss the 1989 order upon New Haven's motion for reconsideration. (p. 726)

·         Adams v. Vaill, 158 Conn. 478, 482, 262 A.2d 169 (1969). “It cannot be doubted that courts have inherent power to change or modify their own injunctions where circumstances or pertinent law have so changed as to make it equitable to do so.”

·         Cott Beverage Corp. v. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, 21 Conn. Sup. 244, 245, 154 A.2d 140 (1959). “There seems little doubt that under proper circumstances a permanent injunction may be modified or dissolved, even after the term in which it was rendered. United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114; Restatement, 4 Torts § 943, comment e; 28 Am. Jur. 835, § 323; Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., 312 U.S. 287, 298; Ladner v. Siegel, 298 Pa. 487. The well-recognized rule that a judgment may not be opened after the term in which it has been rendered (see Cichy v. Kostyk, 143 Conn. 688) is not applicable to the dissolution or modification of a permanent injunction, where the grounds for which it was granted no longer exist by reason of changed conditions. See above authorities. The court has the power to dissolve the injunction in the present case at any time if satisfied that circumstances have so changed as to render such action just and equitable.”

WEST KEY NUMBERS:

·        Injunctions # 160-188 [Preliminary and interlocutory Injunctions]

·        Injunctions # 210 [Permanent injunctions]

ENCYCLOPEDIAS:

·        42 Am Jur 2d (2000).  Injunctions

§§ 302-314. Continuance, modification, or dissolution of injunction]

·         43A CJS (2004) Injunctions

§§ 368-397. Continuing, dissolving, vacating, or modifying injunctions

·         Annotation, Appealability Of Order Granting, Extending, Or Refusing To Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order, 19 ALR3d 403 (1968).

·         Annotation, Appealability Of Order Refusing To Grant Or Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order, 19 ALR3d 459 (1968).

·          

TEXTS & TREATISES:

·        2 Renee Bevacqua Bollier and Susan V. Busby, Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure (3^rd ed. 2002).

Chapter 19. Extraordinary procedures

h.       Continuance, modification and dissolution

i.         Stay or continuance of injunction pending appeal

·        2 Ralph P. Dupont, Dupont on Connecticut Civil Procedure (2003 ed.).

Chapter 23. Miscellaneous remedies and procedures

§ 23-50.24. Dissolution of temporary injunction

§ 23-50.25. Motion to dissolve temporary injunction before retrun date

§ 23-50.26. Continuance pending appeal

§ 23-50.27. Permanent injunction; Stay pending appeal

§ 23-50.28. Removal of stay or dissolution of injunction

§ 23-50.29. Reservation for advice; Dissolution of injunction

·        2 Edward L. Stephenson. Connecticut Civil Procedure (2d ed., 1981).

Chapter 18. Specialized Procedures

§ 270. Modification or dissolution of permanent injunction

·         2 Joel M. Kaye and Wayne D. Effron, Connecticut Practice Series, Connecticut Practice Forms (4^th ed. 2004).

Authors’ Comments following Form 106.18

COMPILER:

Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560.

No.

:

Superior Court

(First Named Plaintiff)

:

Judicial District of (or) G.A. No.

v.

:

at

(First Named Defendant)

:

(Date)

SCOPE:

Bibliographic resources relating to the enforcement of a writ of injunction in Connecticut.

DEFINITIONS:

·         “An order of the court must be obeyed until it has been modified or successfully challenged.” Jaconski v. AMF, Inc., 208 Conn. 230, 234-235, 543 A.2d 728 (1988).

·          “Typically, the violation of an injunction is punished by the imposition of a penalty based upon compensatory damages.” Crandall v. Gould, 244 Conn. 583, 592, 711 A.2d 682 (1998).

·          “There is, however, another means of punishing a violator and that is to deny him any aid from courts of the state where the injunction is granted in the assertion of rights growing out of the transaction in question until he has purged himself of the contempt.” Wehrhane v. Peyton, 134 Conn. 486, 496, 58 A.2d 698 (1948).

·          “It is true that an injunction may be violated by indirect, as well as by direct, methods; and that one cannot escape punishment upon the ground that he did not violate the letter, if he violated the manifest spirit of the injunction.” Deming v. Bradstreet, 85 Conn. 650, 658, 84 A. 116 (1912).

STATUTES:

·         Conn. Gen. Stats. (2003)

Chapter 871. Courts

§ 51-33. Punishment for contempt of court

§ 51-33a. Criminal contempt

Chapter 916. Injunctions

COURT RULES:

·         Conn. Practice Book (2004 ed.)

§ 1-13A. Contempt

§ 1-14. —Criminal contempt

§ 1-16. —Summary criminal contempt

§ 1-17. —Deferral of proceedings

§ 1-18. —Nonsummary contempt proceedings

§ 1-19. —Judicial authorit y disqualification in nonsummary contempt proceedings

§ 1-20. —Where no right to jury trial in nonsummary proceeding

§ 1-21. —Nonsummary judgment

§ 1-21A. —Civil contempt

FORMS:

·         2 Conn. Practice Book  ( October 1997)

Form 106.3. Motion for Contempt—Injunction (Figure 3)

·         3A Joel M. Kaye and Wayne D. Effron, Connecticut Practice Series, Connecticut Practice Forms (4^th ed. 2004).

Form S-154. Motion to show cause why defendant should not be punished for failure to obey injunction

·         14A Am Jur Pleading & Practice (2002) Injunctions

§ 77. Affidavit—Of contempt for violation of preliminary injunction

§ 78. Affidavit—Of contempt for violation of preliminary injunction—Another form

CASES:

·         Gattoni v. Zaccaro, 52 Conn. App. 274, 284-285, 727 A.2d 706 (1999). “We agree with the plaintiffs that Gattoni was entitled to a hearing or trial before the trial court held him in contempt or imposed sanctions on him. Although it is clear that Gattoni did not comply with the injunction issued on March 3, 1998, ordering him to return the land involved to NSDA immediately, the failure to obey an injunction must be wilful to support a finding of contempt. ‘The inability of a party to obey an order of the court, without fault on his part, is a good defense to the charge of contempt.’ Mallory v. Mallory, 207 Conn. 48, 57, 539 A.2d 995 (1988). A judgment of contempt cannot be based on representations of counsel in a motion, but must be supported by evidence produced in court at a proper proceeding. The defendants do not claim that Gattoni's failure to comply with the injunction was a criminal contempt that occurred in the presence of the court. In such a proceeding, a court can find a party in contempt on the basis of its own observations. In this case, only a civil or indirect contempt is involved. ‘It is beyond question that `due process of law . . . requires that one charged with contempt of court be advised of the charges against him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, have the right to be represented by counsel, and have a chance to testify and call other witnesses in his behalf, either by way of defense or explanation.’ Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 197 Conn. 141, 150, 496 A.2d 476 (1985). ‘[T]he evidence necessary to constitute the alleged contempt must have been established by sufficient proof in the trial court.’ Potter v. Board of Selectmen, 174 Conn. 195, 197, 384 A.2d 369 (1978). ‘[T]he court had no power to proceed to a trial and judgment of condemnation in the absence of the accused.’ Welsh v. Barber, 52 Conn. 147, 157 (1884).”

·         Walden v. Siebert, 102 Conn. 353, 358, 128 A. 702 (1925). “It is the doing of the illegal act which is enjoined, and it makes no difference what means are employed by a defendant in so doing. These defendants were enjoined not to continue building the fence, and it was just as feasible to interrupt the work of an independent contractor as that of one who was not. If any damage enured to them from such an interruption, the injunction had been granted upon filing of a substantial bond by pla