Conn. Gen. Stat. ยง 52-260
(1949 Rev., S. 3611; 1953, S. 1975d; 1957, P.A. 56; February, 1965, P.A. 574, S. 41; 1967, P.A. 273; 889; 1969, P.A. 297; 397; 720; P.A. 73-596; P.A. 74-183, S. 91, 291; P.A. 75-479, S. 3, 25; P.A. 76-436, S. 137, 681; P.A. 77-614, S. 165, 610; P.A. 78-289, S. 3; P.A. 80-190, S. 12; 80-482, S. 4, 170, 191, 339, 345, 348; P.A. 82-160, S. 131; 82-378; P.A. 83-251; P.A. 85-127; P.A. 86-182; P.A. 95-195, S. 82, 83; P.A. 00-45; P.A. 01-32, S. 1; 01-84, S. 4, 26; 01-186, S. 7; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 146 (d); P.A. 04-169, S. 17; 04-189, S. 1; 04-232, S. 1; P.A. 05-45, S. 1; P.A. 10-178, S. 5.)
Cited. 188 Conn. 213; 219 Conn. 204; 236 C. 710; 239 Conn. 708. Cited. 37 Conn.App. 865; 45 CA 305. Legal experts are not included within enumeration of the categories of experts entitled to discretionary award of expert witness fees. 78 CA 760. Sec. 31-51m allows for costs, but does not expressly provide for expert witness fees; therefore, general cost provisions of Sec. 52-257 and this section apply, which do not mention nontestimonial costs; accordingly, nontestimonial work performed by plaintiff’s economics expert was not taxable as costs. 79 Conn.App. 501. Expert witness fees for roofing consulting firms are not enumerated under section and cannot be awarded as part of claim under Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. 113 CA 509. Court improperly awarded expert witness fees for construction experts in claim under Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. 121 CA 105. Agreement to pay witness more than legal fees will not ordinarily be enforced; exceptional cases considered. 26 CS 463. Statute, as amended, read in conjunction with Sec. 48-12, as amended, entitled property owner to reasonable appraisal fees in condemnation proceedings. 27 Conn.Supp. 288. Subsec. (f): Fee charged by an expert for time spent in preparation for his or her deposition treated as a taxable cost. 286 Conn. 234. Trial court may not award costs for nontestimonial work performed by expert witness. 289 C. 61. Nothing in legislative history indicates that legislature’s use of term “costs” in either Sec. 31-51m or 31-51q was intended to authorize court to award prevailing party the cost of an economist; further, because an economist is not a listed expert witness whose cost may be reimbursed under general provisions of Subsec., plaintiff’s expert economist’s testimonial fees cannot be reimbursed. 79 Conn.App. 501. Invoices submitted by defendant for expert witness fees were not sufficient on their own to establish that the costs stated therein were “reasonable”. 113 CA 339.