Conn. Gen. Stat. ยง 52-278d
(P.A. 73-431, S. 4, 8; P.A. 75-530, S. 32, 35; P.A. 76-21, S. 4; 76-401, S. 1, 7; P.A. 86-403, S. 85, 132; P.A. 93-431, S. 2, 10.)
Cited. 172 Conn. 577; 173 Conn. 426; 176 Conn. 432; 181 Conn. 42; Id., 524; 184 Conn. 85; 185 C. 37. A hearing on prejudgment remedy application under section is not occasion to test plaintiff’s rights against garnishees. 186 Conn. 329. Cited. 188 Conn. 69; 200 Conn. 406; 203 Conn. 475; 208 Conn. 13; 218 C. 162; 222 Conn. 361; Id., 541. Not unconstitutionally vague on its face. 224 Conn. 29. Cited. 226 Conn. 773; 229 C. 455; 236 C. 746. Cited. 1 CA 93; Id., 519; 4 Conn.App. 510; 14 Conn.App. 579; 21 Conn.App. 661; 26 CA 804; 28 Conn.App. 809; 32 Conn.App. 118; 33 Conn.App. 223; 34 CA 216; Id., 801; 39 Conn.App. 183; 46 Conn.App. 399. Prejudgment remedy ordered by court is improper where court made no finding of probable damages. 68 Conn.App. 685. Quantum of proof needed for prejudgment remedy less than that required to sustain final judgment. 30 CS 337. Cited. 38 Conn.Supp. 98; 42 CS 460. Subsec. (a): Cited. 189 C. 333. The hearing in probable cause is not contemplated to be a full scale trial on the merits of plaintiff’s claim. 193 Conn. 174. Cited. 196 Conn. 359; 213 Conn. 612; 224 C. 483. “Or as modified by the court” encompasses the power to require whatever security is constitutionally necessary. 226 Conn. 773. Cited. Id., 812. Cited. 1 Conn.App. 188; 3 Conn.App. 404; 5 Conn.App. 90; 6 Conn.App. 180; 11 Conn.App. 420; 25 Conn.App. 16; 31 CA 652; 34 CA 22; Id., 303; Id., 801; 41 CA 750. Failure to provide hearing for either party to present evidence concerning application for prejudgment remedy found to be a procedural flaw requiring remand. 56 CA 114. Court may allow plaintiff to orally amend application and may entertain such amended application at the prejudgment remedy hearing; court must consider potential counterclaims during a hearing on application for prejudgment remedy, even when the counterclaims have not been filed. 68 Conn.App. 685. Phrase “in the matter” not restricted to lawsuits pending in Connecticut courts; prejudgment remedy statutes intended to apply either before or after a lawsuit is filed to secure property of defendant in Connecticut should plaintiff obtain judgment in any court; out of state judgment may be registered in Connecticut as foreign judgment to be given same effect as judgment of a court of this state. 73 CA 267. Statute clearly and unambiguously does not preclude court from granting prejudgment remedy order that authorizes attachment for amount less than amount sought in application for prejudgment remedy and does not require court, before issuing such order for a lesser amount, to determine that there exists probable cause that a judgment in at least amount sought in the application for prejudgment remedy will be rendered in the matter in favor of plaintiff utility company. 89 Conn.App. 164. To justify issuance of a prejudgment remedy, probable cause must be established both as to the merits of the cause of action and as to the amount of the requested attachment. 112 Conn.App. 315. Court unreasonably found adequate showing of insurance coverage when only the policy declaration page was admitted, defendant acknowledged insurer’s reservation of rights re defense and coverage, and neither the policy nor the reservation letter was placed in evidence. 116 CA 685.