Connecticut Judicial Branch

Law Libraries
Copyright © 2000-2022, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved.

2022 Edition

Injunctions and Restraining Orders

2017 Edition

in Connecticut
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................... 3
Section 1: Applications for Injunction.................................................................. 4
Table 1: Types and Forms of Injunctions ........................................................ 12
Table 2: Notice Required for Ex Parte Injunction ............................................. 14
Figure 1: Injunction against Nuisance - Maintenance of Disposal Area ............... 15
Table 3: Extraordinary Nature of Injunctive Relief ........................................... 20
Table 4: Standards for Issuance of Temporary Injunction ................................ 21
Section 2: Modification and Dissolution of Injunction ......................................... 23
Figure 2: Motion to dissolve temporary injunction ........................................... 28
Section 3: Enforcement of Injunction ................................................................ 30
Figure 3: Motion for Contempt—Injunction ..................................................... 35
Section 4: Specific Subjects of Injunctive Protection or Relief .............................. 36
Table 5: Selected ALR Annotations on Subjects of Injunctive Protection or Relief 47
Figure 4: Injunction against interference with flow of surface waters ................. 51
Figure 5: Injunction to Restrain Violation of Zoning Ordinance .......................... 53
Section 5: Appeal of Injunction ........................................................................ 55

Prepared by Connecticut Judicial Branch, Superior Court Operations,

Judge Support Services, Law Library Services Unit

[email protected]

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-1

 These guides are provided with the understanding that they represent
only a beginning to research. It is the responsibility of the person doing legal research to
come to his or her own conclusions about the authoritativeness, reliability, validity, and
currency of any resource cited in this research guide.

View our other research guides at

https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/selfguides.htm

This guide links to advance release opinions on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website
and to case law hosted on Google Scholar and Harvard’s Case Law Access Project.
The online versions are for informational purposes only.

References to online legal research databases refer to in-library use of these databases.
Remote access is not available.

Connecticut Judicial Branch Website Policies and Disclaimers

https://www.jud.ct.gov/policies.htm

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-2

 Introduction
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

• “Where injunctive relief is granted, the decree should be sufficiently clear and
definite in its terms for the defendant to be able to determine with reasonable
certainty what conduct on his part is required or prohibited.” Adams v. Vaill, 158
Conn. 478, 485-486, 262 A.2d 169 (1969).

• “The following standard of review applies to the review of a trial court’s ruling on
an injunction. The issuance of an injunction and the scope and quantum of
injunctive relief rests in the sound discretion of the trier….A prayer for injunctive
relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and the court’s ruling can
be reviewed only for the purpose of determining whether the decision was based
on an erroneous statement of law or an abuse of discretion.” City of Stamford v.
Ten Rugby Street, LLC, 164 Conn. App. 49, 81, 137 A.3d 781, (2016).

• “An injunction may be granted immediately, if the circumstances of the case

demand it, or the court or judge may cause immediate notice of the application
to be given to the adverse party, that he may show cause why the injunction
should not be granted.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-473(a) (2021).

• “An action for an injunction being equitable, whether or not a plaintiff is entitled to
relief is determined, not by the situation existing when it is begun, but by that
which is developed at the trial.” E.M. Loew’s Enterprises, Inc. v. International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees et al., 127 Conn. 415, 419 (1941).

• “It [an action for an injunction] is a preventive remedy and not punishment for
past conduct.” William Schollhorn Co. v. Playthings Jewelry & Novelty Workers
International Union, 14 Conn. Supp. 22, 27 (1946).

• “… the issue of whether an injunction is necessary in addition to a judgment, and

the precise parameters of any injunction, have not been considered by the trial
court. In addition, the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction barring the
commissioner from operating any buses over any of their designated routes may
impact the separate, pending litigation concerning the extent of the plaintiffs’
operating rights under their certificates, including whether the plaintiffs’ rights
over these routes are exclusive. That dispute is not before us in the present
appeal.” Dattco, Inc. v. Commissioner of Transportation, 324 Conn. 39, 55, 151
A.3d 823 (2016).

• See Domestic Violence and Civil Protection Orders in Connecticut for coverage of
family violence restraining orders, civil protection orders, and criminal protective
orders.

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-3

 Section 1: Applications for Injunction
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. Stat. § 52-
471(a) (2021).

• 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. Stat. § 52-471(b) (2021).

• 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. Stat. § 52-472 (2021).

STATUTES: • Conn. Gen. Stat. (2021)

Chapter 916. Injunctions
You can visit your § 52-471. Granting of injunction
local law library or
search the most
§ 52-472. Bond on issue of temporary injunction
recent statutes and § 52-473. Injunctions may be granted immediately or
public acts on the after notice
Connecticut General § 52-473a. Enjoining or restraining enforcement of
Assembly website to
confirm that you are
certain environmental or public health laws.
using the most up- Ex parte orders prohibited. Appeal.
to-date statutes. § 52-474. Interested persons may appear and be heard.
§ 52-475. Dissolution of temporary injunction.
You can visit your § 52-476. Continuance pending appeal.
local law library or
search the most
§ 52-477. Permanent injunction; stay pending appeal.
recent statutes and § 52-478. Removal of stay or dissolution of injunction.
public acts on the
Connecticut General
Assembly website to Injunctions and Restraining Orders-4
confirm that you are
using the most up-to-
date statutes.
 § 52-479. Reservation for advice. Dissolution of
injunction.
§ 52-480. Injunction against malicious erection of
structure.
§ 52-481. Abatement of manufacturer’s nuisance.
Temporary injunction.
§ 52-483. Injunction against sale on execution;
adjournment of sale.

LEGISLATIVE: • Connecticut Law on Spite Fences, Julia Singer Bansal,

Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research
Office of Legislative Report, 2018-R-0061 (February 22, 2018).
Research reports
summarize and
analyze the law in • Supreme Court Decision in the Dattco Case, Paul Frishman,
effect on the date of Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research
each report’s Report, 2017-R-0005 (January 9, 2017).
publication. Current
law may be different
from what is • OLR Backgrounder: Searching Private Property for Zoning
discussed in the Violations When Consent is Withheld, Julia Singer Bansal,
reports. Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research
Report, 2013-R-0008 (January 9, 2013).

COURT RULES:
Office of Legislative • Conn. Practice Book (2022)
Research reports
summarize andto the
§ 4-5. Notice Required for Ex Parte Temporary
Amendments
analyze the law in Injunctions
Practice Book (Court
effect on the date of
Rules) are published § 11-9. Disclosure of Previous Applications
each report’s
in the Connecticut
publication. Current
Law Journal
law may and
be different
posted
from whatonline.
is
discussed in the
CIVIL
reports.
• Connecticut Superior Court Civil Procedures
Amendments to the
PROCEDURES:
Practice Book (Court Documents Required for an Ex Parte Temporary
Rules) are published Injunction or a Temporary Injunction After Notice and
in the Connecticut Hearing
Law Journal and
posted online.
FORMS: • 2 Conn. Practice Book (October 1992)
Form 104.4. Injunction Against Nuisance - Maintenance
of Disposal Area (Figure 1)

• 14A Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms Injunctions, Thomson

West, 2013 (Also available on Westlaw).
§ 6. Complaint, petition, or declaration—For permanent
injunction—Seeking temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction--General form
§ 59. Notice of motion or application—For temporary
restraining order
§ 60. Notice of motion or application—For preliminary
injunction
§ 70. Order—To show cause why preliminary injunction
should not issue-—With temporary restraining order—
General form
§ 97. Bond or undertaking—For temporary restraining
order

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-5

 § 103. Notice—Motion for additional bond for preliminary
injunction
§ 104. Order—Requiring additional bond for preliminary
injunction

• Library of Connecticut Family Law Forms, 2d ed., by

MacNamara, Welsh, and George, editors, Connecticut Law
Tribune, 2014.
Chapter 9. Forms 9-001—9-008.
9-001. Application for Ex Parte Temporary Injunction
9-002. Order of Ex Parte Temporary Injunction
9-003. Affidavit in Support of Application for Ex Parte
Temporary Injunction
9-004. Application for Order to Show Cause (Re: Ex
Parte Temporary Injunction)
9-005. Order to Show Cause (Re: Ex Parte Temporary
Injunction)
9-006. Order of Service (Re: Ex Parte Temporary
Injunction)
9-007. Notice Pursuant to Practice Book § 4-5 (Re: Ex
Parte Temporary Injunction)
9-008. Summons (Re: Ex Parte Temporary Injunction)

• Connecticut Supreme and Appellate Court Records and

Briefs:

o Sample Ex Parte Injunctions:

➢ Parrotta v. Parrotta, 119 Conn.App. 472, 988 A.2d

383 (2010)
➢ Sikand v. Wilson-Coker, 276 Conn. 618 (2006)
➢ TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132,
943 A.2d 406 (2008)

o Sample Temporary Injunctions:

➢ Conservation Commission v. Red 11, LLC, 119

Conn. App. 377, 987 A.2d 398 (2010)
➢ Palozie v. Palozie, 283 Conn. 538, 927 A.2d 903
(2007)

CASES: • Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University at Middletown et

al. v. Wesleyan University et al., 338 Conn. 189, 238, 257
A.3d 874 (2021). “More stringent standards, however,
govern the issuance of mandatory injunctions. Unlike a
prohibitory injunction—an order of the court that merely
maintains the status quo by restraining a party from the
commission of some act—a mandatory injunction is a court
order that commands a party to perform some affirmative
act. E.g., Tomasso Bros., Inc. v. October Twenty-Four, Inc.,
230 Conn. 641, 652, 646 A.2d 133 (1994). ‘Relief by way of
mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedy granted in
the sound discretion of the court [but] only under compelling

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-6

Once you have circumstances.’”
identified useful
cases, it is important • Kuchta v. Arisian, 329 Conn. 530, 553, 187 A.3d 408, 422
to update the cases (2018). “‘In seeking an injunction pursuant to [General
before you rely on
them. Updating case Statutes] § 8-12, the town is relieved of the normal burden
law means checking of proving irreparable harm and the lack of an adequate
to see if the cases remedy at law because § 8-12 by implication assumes that
are still good law. no adequate alternative remedy exists and that the injury
You can contact your
local law librarian to was irreparable.... The town need prove only that the
learn about the tools statutes or ordinances were violated.... The proof of
available to you to violations does not, however, deprive the court of discretion
update cases. and does not obligate the court mechanically to grant the
requested injunction for every violation.’ (Citations omitted;
Once you have
emphasis added.) Gelinas v. West Hartford, 225 Conn. 575,
identified useful 588, 626 A.2d 259 (1993).”
cases, it is important
to update the cases
before you rely on
• Gemilli v. Gemilli, Superior Court, Judicial District of
them. Updating case Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, FA156025566S (July 2018)
law means checking (2018 WL 3846392). “The record reflects that the Defendant
to see if the cases are
still good law. You can
failed to give the plaintiff's counsel adequate notice pursuant
contact your local law to Practice Book Section 4-5. The plaintiff was therefore
librarian to learn forced to file objections essentially to counter the
about the tools
available to you to
defendant's arguments without the benefit of seeing the
update cases. applications prior to their filing. The court denied the
defendant's applications and scheduled hearings on
both. Neither application was thereafter properly served
upon the Plaintiff.”

• Steroco, Inc. v. Szymanski, 166 Conn. App. 75, 87-88, 140

A.3d 1014 (2016). “‘A party seeking injunctive relief has the
burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and a lack
of an adequate remedy at law…’ Additionally, ‘[a] decision to
grant or deny an injunction must be compatible with the
equities in the case, which should take into account the
gravity and willfulness of the violation, as well as the
potential harm to the defendant.’”

• City of Stamford v. Ten Rugby Street, LLC, 164 Conn. App.

49, 81, 137 A.3d 781, (2016). “The following standard of
review applies to the review of a trial court’s ruling on an
injunction. The issuance of an injunction and the scope and
quantum of injunctive relief rests in the sound discretion of
the trier….A prayer for injunctive relief is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court and the court’s ruling can be
reviewed only for the purpose of determining whether the
decision was based on an erroneous statement of law or an
abuse of discretion.”

• Dattco, Inc. v. Commissioner of Transportation, 324 Conn.

39, 151 A.3d 823 (2016). “…The plaintiffs are four bus
companies operating buses over routes in and around the
cities of Hartford and New Britain. Each plaintiff holds a
certificate of public convenience and necessity, granting it

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-7

 authority to operate a bus service over a specified route. The
Once you have
identified useful certificates were issued under predecessor statutes to what
cases, it is important is now General Statutes § 13b-80.” (p. 41).
to update the cases
before you rely on “…the commissioner condemned the certificates pursuant to
them. Updating case
law means checking the state’s power of eminent domain, prompting the plaintiffs
to see if the cases to file the actions that are the subject of this appeal. The
are still good law. plaintiffs each claim that the commissioner lacks the
You can contact your statutory authority to condemn their certificates. They seek
local law librarian to
learn about the tools permanent injunctive and other relief preventing the
available to you to commissioner from carrying out the condemnations.” (p. 43)
update cases.
• Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Underpass
Auto Parts Company, 319 Conn. 80, 123 A.3d 1192 (2015).
Once you have
identified useful
“It bears noting that our conclusion that the trial court in the
cases, it is important present case will be required to order remediation of the
to update the cases pollution pursuant to the applicable remediation standard
before you rely on
them. Updating case
regulations does not necessarily mean that the trial court is
law means checking required to order strict compliance with the Water Pollution
to see if the cases are Control Act and its implementing regulations in all cases, no
still good law. You can
contact your local law
matter what the nature of the alleged violation. See
librarian to learn Conservation Commission v. Price, 193 Conn. At 430, 479
about the tools A.2d 187 (“[t]he grant of jurisdiction to ensure compliance
available to you to
update cases.
with a statute hardly suggests an absolute duty to do so
under any and all circumstances, and a [trial] judge …is not
mechanically obligated to grant an injunction for every
violation of law”). (p. 103-104)

“We also, conclude that, upon finding that a defendant has

polluted the waters of the state, the trial court, as a practical
matter, necessarily has discretion under §22a-430(d) to
direct the precise contours and timing of the remediation
process. After all, the primary remedy contemplated by the
legislature under that provision is ‘injunctive relief,’ which,
by its very nature, invokes the equitable authority of the
court.” (p. 104)

• John Avery et al. v. Luis Medina et al., 151 Conn. App. 433,
93 A.3d 1241 (2014). “The plaintiffs claim that the court
erred in concluding that the defendants’ stone wall was not a
permanent structure, as that term is used in the restrictive
covenant set forth in the defendants’ deed.” (p. 441)

“The plaintiffs next claim that the court erred in declining to

award punitive damages and costs on the basis of the
defendants’ intentional, wanton, and malicious violations of
their rights.” (p. 449)

“…the case is remanded with direction to render judgment

for the plaintiffs on their request for injunctive relief
requiring the defendants to remove all portions of the stone
wall that are within 100 feet of the westerly line of
Winchester Road.” (p. 451)

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-8

Once you have • Ray Weiner, LLC, et al. v. City of Bridgeport et al., 150
identified useful Conn. App. 279, 288, 92 A. 3d 258 (2014). “In considering
cases, it is important the irreparable harm element, we are guided by the principle
to update the cases that ‘[a]lthough ... absolute certainty is not required, it must
before you rely on
them. Updating case appear that there is a substantial probability that but for the
law means checking issuance of the injunction, the party seeking it will suffer
to see if the cases irreparable harm.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
are still good law. Silitschanu v. Groesbeck, 12 Conn.App. 57, 65, 529 A.2d
You can contact your
local law librarian to 732 (1987), aff'd, 208 Conn. 312, 543 A.2d 737 (1988).
learn about the tools
available to you to • Michael C. Hoffman et al. v. Q 350, LLC et al., Superior
update cases. Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, No.
FST-CV12-6014771-S (August 6, 2014) (58 Conn. L. Rptr.
Once you have
883, 884) (2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2113) (2014 WL
identified useful 4921638). “A party seeking injunctive relief must
cases, it is important demonstrate that: (1) it has no adequate remedy at law; (2)
to update the cases
before you rely on
it will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) it
them. Updating case will likely prevail on the merits; and (4) the balance of the
law means checking equities tips in its favor. Aqleh v. Cadle Rock Joint Venture
to see if the cases are
still good law. You can
II, L.P., 299 Conn. 84, 97-98 (2010) citing Waterbury
contact your local law Teachers Ass’n v. Freedom in Information Commission, 230
librarian to learn Conn. 441, 446 (1994).”
about the tools
available to you to
update cases. • Jarjura for Comptroller v. State Elections Enforcement
Commission, 51 Conn. Supp. 483, 429, 4 A3d. 356 (2010).
“…The issuance of a temporary injunction is an
‘extraordinary remedy’ that courts [should grant] cautiously.
Hartford v. American Arbitration Assn., 174 Conn. 472, 476,
391 A2d. 137 (1978). ‘The remedy by injunction is
summary, peculiar, and extraordinary. An injunction ought
not to be issued except for the prevention of great and
irreparable mischief.’ Connecticut Assn. of Clinical
Laboratories v. Connecticut Blue Cross, Inc. 31 Conn. Sup.
110,113, 324 A2d. 288 (1973).”

• Andrzejczyk v. Advo System, Inc., 146 Conn. 428, 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.” (p.
429-430)

“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)

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-9

 • 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.”

WEST KEY • Injunction #1001-1070 [Injunctions in general; Permanent

NUMBERS: injunctions in general]
• Injunction #1071-1120 [Preliminary, temporary, and
interlocutory injunctions in general]
• Injunction #1121-1150 [Temporary restraining orders in
general]
• Injunction #1151-1500 [Particular subjects of relief]
• Injunction #1501-1650 [Actions and proceedings]
• Injunction #1651-1710 [Bonds and other security]

ENCYCLOPEDIAS: • 42 Am Jur 2d Injunctions, Thomson West, 2020 (Also

available on Westlaw).
Encyclopedias and II. Principles governing issuance or denial
ALRs are available in
print at some law
III. Kinds of rights protected and matters controllable
library locations and IV. Action or application for injunction; Pleading and
accessible online at Practice
all law library
locations.
• 43A CJS Injunctions, Thomson West, 2014 (Also available on
Online databases are Westlaw).
available for II. Principles governing issuance or denial
in-library use. III. Grounds for relief
Remote access is not
available. VIII. Damages arising from wrongful issuance of
injunction

• 73 A.L.R.2d 854, Furnishing of Bond As Prerequisite To

Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order, by F. M. English,
Thomson West, 1960.

• 82 A.L.R.2d 1064, Court’s Lack of Jurisdiction of Subject

Matter In Granting Injunction As A Defense In Action On
Injunction Bond, by C. R. McCorkle, Thomson West, 1962.

• 91 A.L.R.2d 1312, Dismissal of Injunction Action or Bill

Without Prejudice As Breach Of Injunction Bond, by K. H.
Larsen, Thomson West, 1963.

• 95 A.L.R.2d 1190, Period For Which Damages Are

Recoverable Or Are Computed Under Injunction Bond, by J.
R. Shepherd, Thomson West, 1964.

• 30 A.L.R.4th 273, Recovery of Damages Resulting From

Wrongful Issuance Of Injunction As Limited to Amount of
Bond, by Jay M. Zitter, Thomson West, 1984.

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-10

TEXTS & • 2 Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure, 3rd ed., by
TREATISES: Renee Bevacqua Bollier et al., Atlantic Law Book Co., 2002,
with 2003 supplement.
Each of our law Chapter 19. Extraordinary procedures, Sec. 227
libraries own the
Connecticut treatises a. General
cited. You can b. Jurisdiction
contact us or visit c. Complaint
our catalog to d. Order to show cause
determine which of
our law libraries own e. Ex parte hearing
the other treatises f. Bond
cited or to search for g. Issuance
more treatises. h. Continuance, modification and dissolution
References to online i. Stay or continuance of injunction pending appeal
databases refer to j. Violation of injunctions
in-library use of
these databases. • 2 Dupont on Connecticut Civil Practice, by Ralph Dupont,
Remote access is not
available. 2021-2022 ed., LexisNexis.
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 persons 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 return day
§ 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 Connecticut Civil Procedure, 2nd ed., by Edward L.

Stephenson et al., Atlantic Law Book Company, 1971, with
1981 supplement.
Chapter 18. Specialized Procedures
§ 267. Injunctions
§ 268. Temporary injunctions
§ 269. Status of temporary injunction pending appeal
§ 270. Modification or dissolution of perm. injunction
§ 271. Violation of injunction

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-11

Table 1: Types and Forms of Injunctions

Types and Forms

of Injunctions

Restraining • “issued . . . for the purpose of restraining the defendant for

Order 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).
Temporary
Restraining
For example, “Action to enjoin the defendant from taking by
Order (TRO)
condemnation certain real property owned by the plaintiffs,
…where the court,…, granted the plaintiffs’ application from an
ex parte temporary restraining order pending a hearing on the
plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunctive relief…”
Aposporos v. Urban Redevelopment Commission of the City of
Stamford, 259 Conn. 563, 564, 790 A.2d 1167 (2002).

• Sometimes granted ex parte (without notice) to the opposing

party. See Table 2 for Notice requirements.

Temporary • “A temporary injunction is a preliminary order of the court,

Injunction 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 maintain

the status quo until the rights of the various parties can be
sorted out, after a full hearing on the merits.” Danso v.
University of Connecticut, 50 Conn. Supp. 256, 261, 919 A.2d
110 (2007).

• “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. Stat. § 52-473(b) (2021).

Permanent • “…Before a permanent injunction may be issued, it must be

Injunction decided upon facts proved at trial.” Gerdis v. Bloethe, 39
Conn. Supp. 53, 55, 467 A.2d 689 (1983).

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-12

• “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 Enterprises v. Overland
Equipment Co., 758 A.2d 1026 (Md. App. 2000).

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-13

Table 2: Notice Required for Ex Parte Injunction

Notice Required for Ex Parte Injunction

Conn. Practice Book § 4-5 (2022)

(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 General Statutes § 46b-15 or to motions for orders of temporary
custody in juvenile matters filed pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-129.

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-14

Figure 1: Injunction against Nuisance - Maintenance of Disposal Area
2 Conn. Practice Book (1992), Form 104.4

Complaint

1. The plaintiff at all times hereinafter mentioned has been the owner of a
certain tract of land situated in the town of with a dwelling
house occupied by the plaintiff and his family and other improvements thereon.
2. The town of maintains a public dumping ground and disposal area
near the plaintiff's land.
3. The defendant has permitted or caused the deposit of garbage, brush,
refuse, metal, tires and other waste material at that area.
4. As a result thereof (a) Combustible materials at the area often ignite and
burn and give off gases and smoke which are carried to the plaintiff's property.
(b) Noxious and offensive odors arise from the area and drift onto the plaintiff's
property. (c) The area has been and now is a breeding place for vermin, germs and
other unsanitary and offensive creatures which come upon the plaintiff's property.
(d) Waste paper, boxes and miscellaneous litter are carried by the wind or other
means and are deposited on the plaintiff's property. (e) Garbage, bottles, cans,
paper and other refuse fall on the adjacent highway from vehicles carrying materials
to the area and are blown or otherwise deposited on to the plaintiff's property.
5. As a further result thereof, the smoke and gases have permeated the
premises of the plaintiff, depositing grime and offensive materials upon the persons,
clothes, personal household effects and other tangible property of the plaintiff, his
family and guests, interfered with normal breathing and have endangered their
health as well as causing them severe discomfort of mind and body, all of which
interferes with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment and use of his property.
6. The acts complained of are a nuisance and have caused and will cause the
plaintiff irreparable injury, in that they are continuous and recurrent and unless
restrained will continue.
7. The plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

The plaintiff claims

1. A temporary and permanent injunction prohibiting and restraining the
defendant from maintaining a nuisance on the area, and from using the area as a
public dumping ground and from maintaining a disposal area thereon.
2. Damages.

(Insert concluding provisions of ordinary writ)

Oath

State of Connecticut (Town)

County of
(Date)
Personally appeared (name of plaintiff or other competent witness) and made
oath to the truth of the matters contained in foregoing complaint, before me

_____________________________
Notary Public

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-15

 Application for Temporary Injunction And Order To Show Cause

The plaintiff in the above entitled action hereby makes application for a
temporary injunction in accordance with his prayer for relief, and respectfully
requests

that an injunction be issued forthwith for the following reasons (state

reasons)
or
that the defendant be ordered to appear at an early date to show cause why the
prayer for an injunction should not be granted.

Order To Show Cause

Whereas, the foregoing complaint with prayer and motion for a temporary
injunction, duly verified, has been presented to the court (or me, a judge of the
superior court, the court not now being in session), and
Whereas, upon application of the plaintiff, it appears that an order should be
issued directing the defendant in this action to appear before the court (or
undersigned) to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue.
Now therefore, it is ordered that the defendant be summoned to appear
before the Superior Court for the Judicial District of (or the undersigned
or some other judge of that court) in Court Room
in the County Court House at (location and address of court
house) on (date and time of hearing) then and there to show cause why a temporary
injunction should not issue against him as prayed for in the foregoing complaint and
application.

Dated at (place and date).

BY THE COURT (_______, J.)

__________________________
Assistant Clerk

(or)
__________________________
A Judge of the Superior Court

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-16

 Summons

To Any Proper Officer:

By authority of the state of Connecticut you are hereby commanded to

summon the defendant in the foregoing action to appear before (the Hon.
or some other judge of) the superior court at the place and time specified in the
foregoing order, then and there to show cause why a temporary injunction should
not be issued against him as prayed for in the foregoing complaint and application,
by serving in the manner provided by statute for the service of process a true and
attested copy of the foregoing writ and verified complaint, application, order and this
summons on the defendant on or before (last date for service).
Hereof fail not, but due service and return make.

Dated at (place and date).

_________________________________
Commissioner of the Superior Court

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-17

 (Caption of Case)

Temporary Injunction

The plaintiff's verified complaint and application for a temporary injunction

having come before the Court (or undersigned, a judge of the Superior Court)
pursuant to an order to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue as
prayed for and

the parties appeared and were fully heard

or

the defendant was duly notified of the order as appears by the officer's return
endorsed thereon, but the defendant failed to appear

and it appearing to the court (or undersigned authority) that a temporary injunction
ought to issue, and

the plaintiff having given a bond to the opposite party with surety satisfactory
to the Court (or undersigned) in the sum of $ to answer all damages
in case the plaintiff shall fail to prosecute the action to effect.

or

that, for good cause shown the Court (or undersigned) is of the opinion that
the temporary injunction ought to issue without bond.

These are therefore, by authority of the state of Connecticut to command and

enjoin you (name of the defendant) and each of your officers, servants, agents, and
employees under penalty of $ to wholly and absolutely desist and refrain from
(insert statement of actions restrained) until the return day of the writ and complaint
and until further order of the court.

Dated at (place and date).

___________________________
A Judge of the Superior Court
or
By The Court ( , J.)

___________________________
Assistant Clerk

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-18

 Order Of Service

To Any Proper Officer:

By authority of the state of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to give

notice of the foregoing order of temporary injunction to the defendant, by serving
upon him, in the manner provided by the statute for the service of process, a true
and attested copy of the foregoing writ, complaint, temporary injunction and of this
citation on or before and return make to this court.

Dated at (place and date).

By The Court ( , J.)

or

__________________________
Judge - Assistant Clerk

All the foregoing applications made to a judge and his doings thereon must be
certified to the court. P.B.1963, see Rules, Sec. 447; Form 101.11.

Bond

Know All Men by These Presents, that [name and address], plaintiff in the
above entitled action, as principal, and (name and address of surety), as surety, are
holden and bound, jointly and severally, unto (name and address of the defendant)
the penal sum of $ , to which payment well and truly to be made, the obligors
hereby bind themselves, their successors, heirs, executors and administrators, firmly
by these presents.
The condition of this obligation is such that whereas (name of the plaintiff)
has brought an action against (name of the defendant), the action being returnable
to the superior court for the judicial district of
, on (return date), demanding equitable relief as therein more
fully appears, the writ being dated at on , and signed by
, commissioner of the superior court
: and
Whereas in the action an application was made for a temporary injunction and
a temporary injunction, a copy of which is hereto annexed, was granted, upon
condition that (name of the plaintiff) furnish a good and sufficient bond to the
defendant.
Now therefore, if the plaintiff shall prosecute the action to effect this bond
shall be void and of no effect; but if the plaintiff shall fail to prosecute the action to
effect, then this bond shall be in full force and effect and obligors herein shall be
bound to answer all damages accruing by reason of the issuance of the temporary
injunction.
L.S.
L.S.

Approved,
________________ Judge

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-19

Table 3: Extraordinary Nature of Injunctive Relief

Extraordinary Nature of Injunctive Relief

Jarjura for Comptroller v. State Elections Enforcement
An injunction Commission, 51 Conn. Supp. 483, 429, 4 A3d. 356 (2010). “…The
is the issuance of a temporary injunction is an ‘extraordinary remedy’
exercise of an that ‘courts [should grant] cautiously.’ Hartford v. American
extraordinary Arbitration Assn., 174 Conn. 472,476, 391 A2d. 137 (1978). ‘The
power remedy by injunction is summary, peculiar, and extraordinary. An
injunction ought not to be issued except for the prevention of great
and irreparable mischief.’ Connecticut Assn. of Clinical Laboratories
v. Connecticut Blue Cross, Inc. 31 Conn. Sup. 110,113, 324 A2d.
288 (1973).”

Geiger et al. v. Carey, 170 Conn. App. 459, 495, 154 A.3d 1093
No adequate (2017). “The court finds that there is no adequate remedy at law
remedy at for the harm sustained by the defendant because Gordon has
law blocked the entrance to the defendant’s driveway or to the right-
of-way with snow.”

Steroco, Inc. v. Szymanski, 166 Conn. App. 75, 87, 140 A.3d 1014
Will suffer (2016). “The extraordinary nature of injunctive relief requires that
irreparable the harm complained of is occurring or will occur if the injunction is
harm if not not granted. Although an absolute certainty is not required, it must
granted appear that there is a substantial probability that but for the
issuance of the injunction, the party seeking it will suffer
irreparable harm.”

Pirtek USA, LLC v. Zaetz, 408 F.Supp.2d 81, 82 (D. Conn. 2005).
“To establish ‘irreparable harm,’ party seeking preliminary
injunctive relief must show that there is continuing harm which
cannot be adequately redressed by final relief on merits and for
which money damages cannot provide adequate compensation.”

Caminis v. Troy, 300 Conn. 297, 303, 12 A.3d 984 (2011). “The
Laches defendants disagree, claiming that the Appellate Court properly
concluded that: (1) the trial court properly determined that laches
barred the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief; and (2) laches
similarly barred the plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment.”

Welles v. Lichaj, 136 Conn. App. 347, 354, 46 A.3d 246 (2012).
Sound “‘The issuance of an injunction and the scope and quantum of
discretion of injunctive relief rests in the sound discretion of the trier….A prayer
the Court for injunctive relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the
court and the court’s ruling can be reviewed only for the purpose
of determining whether the decision was based on an erroneous
statement of law or an abuse of discretion.’ (Citations omitted;
internal quotation marks omitted.) New Breed Logistics, Inc. v. CT
INDY NH TT, LLC, 129 Conn. App. 563, 570-71,19 A.3d 1275
(2011).”

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-20

 Table 4: Standards for Issuance of Temporary Injunction

Standards for Issuance of Temporary Injunction

Fleet National Bank v. Burke,
45 Conn. Supp. 566, 569-571, 727 A.2d 823 (1998)

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

"A temporary injunction is a preliminary order of the court, granted at

Primary the outset or during the pendency of an action, forbidding the
purpose of a performance of the threatened acts described in the original complaint
temporary until the rights of the parties respecting them shall have been finally
injunction 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
Three and irreparable harm until the rights of the parties can be determined
requirements 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 The issuance of an injunction is the exercise of an extraordinary power

extraordinary which rests within the sound discretion of the court. . . . Scoville v.
power 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).
Extreme Moreover, we must keep in mind the doctrine that "[c]ourts will act with
caution extreme caution where the granting of injunctive relief will result in
embarrassment to the operations of government." 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 The court must analyze the facts proved by the plaintiffs in the light of
sustaining the aforementioned principles, and determine, in the exercise of its
substantial and discretion, whether a temporary injunction against the commissioner is
immediate warranted. The plaintiffs must show that they are in danger of sustaining
injury substantial and immediate injury if the injunction is not granted. See Los

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-21

 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)”.

Sample • Connecticut Supreme and Appellate Court Records and Briefs:

Injunctions
o Sample Ex Parte Injunctions:

➢ Parrotta v. Parrotta, 119 Conn.App.472, 988 A.2d 383

(2010).
➢ Sikand v. Wilson-Coker, 276 Conn. 618 (2006)
➢ TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132, 943
A.2d 406 (2008).

o Sample Temporary Injunctions:

➢ Conservation Commission v. Red 11, LLC, 119 Conn.

App. 377, 987 A.2d 398 (2010).
➢ Palozie v. Palozie, 283 Conn. 538, 927 A.2d 903
(2007).

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-22

 Section 2: Modification and Dissolution
of Injunction
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

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. Stat. § 52-
475(a) (2021).

• “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. Stat. §
52-475(b) (2021) [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 § 11-9 (2022).

STATUTES: • Conn. Gen. Stat. (2021)

Chapter 916. Injunctions
You can visit your
local law library or
§ 52-475. Dissolution of temporary injunction
search the most § 52-476. Continuance pending appeal
recent statutes and § 52-477. Permanent injunction; stay pending appeal
public acts on the § 52-478. Removal of stay or dissolution of
Connecticut General
Assembly website to
injunction
confirm that you are
using the most up-
to-date statutes.
Injunctions and Restraining Orders-23
 § 52-479. Reservation for advice. Dissolution of
injunction

COURT RULES: • Conn. Practice Book (2022)

§ 4-5. Notice Required for Ex Parte Temporary
Amendments to the
Practice Book (Court Injunctions
Rules) are published § 11-9. Disclosure of Previous Applications
in the Connecticut
Law Journal and
posted online.

Amendments to the
FORMS:
Practice Book (Court • 2 Conn. Practice Book (1997)
Rules) are published in Form 106.18. Motion to Dissolve Temporary Injunction
the Connecticut Law
Journal and posted (Figure 2)
online.
• 14A Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms Injunctions, Thomson
West, 2013 (Also available on Westlaw).
§ 108. Notice of motion—For stay of injunction pending
appeal
§ 109. Notice of motion—To dissolve or modify
temporary restraining order
§ 111. Notice of motion—To extend temporary
restraining order
§ 112. Notice of motion—To dismiss complaint, or in the
alternative, to deny motion for temporary
restraining order
§ 113. Notice of motion—To dissolve preliminary
injunction—Failure to post bond
§ 114. Affidavit—Stay of injunction pending appeal
§ 115. Affidavit—In support of motion for extension of
temporary restraining order
§ 116. Motion—To dissolve preliminary injunction—
Failure to post bond
§ 117. Notice of motion and motion—To vacate or
modify preliminary injunction—By defendant
§ 118. Motion—To modify permanent injunction—By
defendant
§ 121. Motion—To dismiss complaint or, in the
alternative, to deny motion for temporary
restraining order
§ 122. Order—Stay of injunction pending appeal
§ 123. Order—Continuing temporary restraining order—
Pursuant to continuance of hearing on application
for preliminary injunction—Notice of hearing not
given
§ 125. Order—Dissolving temporary restraining order—
Denying preliminary injunction
§ 126. Order—Modifying preliminary injunction
§ 127. Order—Denying motion to modify preliminary
injunction—Continuing unmodified preliminary
injunction in force
§ 128. Order—Dissolving preliminary injunction—On
defendant’s motion

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-24

 § 133. Consent order—Extending temporary order

CASES: • Avery v. Medina, 174 Conn. App. 507, 519–20, 163 A.3d
1271, 1279 (2017) “‘Courts have in general the power to
Once you have fashion a remedy appropriate to the vindication of a prior ...
identified useful
cases, it is important judgment. ... Having found noncompliance, the court, in the
to update the cases exercise of its equitable powers, necessarily ha[s] the
before you rely on authority to fashion whatever orders [are] required to
them. Updating case protect the integrity of [its original] judgment.’ (Internal
law means checking
to see if the cases are quotation marks omitted.) Gong v. Huang, 129 Conn.App.
still good law. You 141, 154, 21 A.3d 474, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 907, 23
can contact your local A.3d 1247 (2011). ‘This is so because [i]n a contempt
law librarian to learn proceeding, even in the absence of a finding of contempt, a
about the tools
available to you to trial court has broad discretion to make whole a party who
update cases. has suffered as a result of another party's failure to comply
with the court order.’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation
marks omitted.) Fuller v. Fuller, 119 Conn.App. 105, 115,
Once you have 987 A.2d 1040, cert. denied, 296 Conn. 904, 992 A.2d 329
identified useful cases,
it is important to (2010). For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the
update the cases court did not modify the injunction judgment, but merely
before you rely on ordered the defendants to remove the stones in the setback
them. Updating case
law means checking to to effectuate its original judgment.”
see if the cases are still
good law. You can • Rocque v. Farricielli, Superior Court, Judicial District of
contact your local law
librarian to learn about Hartford, No. HHD-CV99-0591020S (Jun. 24, 2013) (2013
the tools available to WL 3630589). “A court of equity has continuing jurisdiction
you to update cases. over injunctions and may modify or dissolve them even
after the term in which they were rendered. If, after hearing
on such motion, the court finds that justice requires a
modification or dissolution because the grounds for which it
was granted no longer exists, or because of changed
circumstances, or other good cause, the court can so order.
(Internal quotations omitted) R. Bollier and S. Busby, 2
Stephenson's Connecticut Civil Procedure (3rd Ed.2002) §
227(h) citing Adams v. Vaill, 158 Conn. 478, 482, 262 A.2d
169 (1969). The court finds no valid justification for
modifying or clarifying the prior orders of the court at this
time.”

• Hilton v. City of New Haven, 233 Conn. 701, 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.” (p. 725)

”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

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-25

Once you have the mandates of the new statute. Therefore, we conclude
identified useful that the trial court properly denied New Haven's request to
cases, it is important dismiss the 1989 order upon New Haven's motion for
to update the cases reconsideration.” (p. 726)
before you rely on
them. Updating case
law means checking • Adams v. Vaill, 158 Conn. 478, 482, 262 A.2d 169 (1969).
to see if the cases are “It cannot be doubted that courts have inherent power to
still good law. You change or modify their own injunctions where
can contact your local
law librarian to learn circumstances or pertinent law have so changed as to make
about the tools it equitable to do so.”
available to you to
update cases. • Cott Beverage Corp. v. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, 21 Conn.
Supp. 244, 245, 154 A.2d 140 (1959). “There seems little
doubt that under proper circumstances a permanent
Once you have
identified useful cases, injunction may be modified or dissolved, even after the
it is important to term in which it was rendered. United States v. Swift & Co.,
update the cases
286 U.S. 106, 114; Restatement, 4 Torts § 943, comment
before you rely on
them. Updating case e; 28 Am. Jur. 835, § 323; Milk Wagon Drivers Union v.
law means checking to Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., 312 U.S. 287, 298; Ladner v.
see if the cases are still
Siegel, 298 Pa. 487. The well-recognized rule that a
good law. You can
contact your local law judgment may not be opened after the term in which it has
librarian to learn about been rendered (see Cichy v. Kostyk, 143 Conn. 688) is not
the tools available to
applicable to the dissolution or modification of a permanent
you to update cases.
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.”

• Olcott v. Pendleton, 128 Conn. 292, 295, 22 A.2d 633

(1941). “…In deciding whether it should be granted or, if
granted, whether it should be continued or dissolved, the
court is called upon to balance the results which may be
caused to one party or the other, and if it appears that to
deny or dissolve it may result in great harm to the plaintiff
and little to the defendant, the court may well exercise its
discretion in favor of granting or continuing it, unless
indeed, it is very clear that the plaintiff is without legal
right.”

WEST KEY • Injunction #1001-1070 [Injunctions in general; Permanent

NUMBERS: injunctions in general]
• Injunction #1611-1650 [Continuing, modifying, or
terminating]

ENCYCLOPEDIAS: • 42 Am Jur 2d Injunctions, Thomson West, 2020 (Also

available on Westlaw).
Encyclopedias and
ALRs are available in §§ 284-294. Continuance, modification, or dissolution of
print at some law injunction
library locations and
accessible online at
• 43A CJS Injunctions, Thomson West, 2014 (Also available
all law library
locations. on Westlaw).

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-26

Encyclopedias and
VI. Continuing, dissolving, vacating, or modifying
ALRs are available in injunctions
print at some law
library locations and
accessible online at
all law library
• 19 A.L.R.3d 403, Appealability Of Order Granting,
locations. Extending, Or Refusing To Dissolve Temporary Restraining
Order, by K. H. Larsen, Thomson West, 1968.
Online databases are
available for
in-library use.
• 19 A.L.R.3d 459, Appealability Of Order Refusing To Grant
Remote access is not Or Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order, by K. H. Larsen,
available. Thomson West, 1968.

TEXTS & • 2 Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure, 3rd ed., by

TREATISES: Renee Bevacqua Bollier et al., Atlantic Law Book Co., 2002,
with 2003 supplement.
Each of our law
libraries own the
Chapter 19. Extraordinary procedures
Connecticut treatises § 227 Injunctions and temporary injunctions
cited. You can h. Continuance, modification and dissolution
contact us or visit i. Stay or continuance of injunction pending
our catalog to
determine which of
appeal
our law libraries own
the other treatises • 2 Dupont on Connecticut Civil Practice, by Ralph Dupont,
cited or to search for 2021-2022 ed., LexisNexis.
more treatises.
Chapter 23. Miscellaneous remedies and procedures
References to online § 23-50.24. Dissolution of temporary injunction
databases refer to § 23-50.25. Motion to dissolve temporary injunction
in-library use of before return day
these databases.
Remote access is not
§ 23-50.26. Continuance pending appeal
available. § 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 Connecticut Practice Series, Connecticut Civil Practice

Forms, 4th ed., by Joel M. Kaye et al., Thomson West,
2004, with 2021 supplement (also available on Westlaw).
Authors’ Comments following Form 106.18. Motion to
dissolve temporary injunction
o Previous applications
o Dissolution of temporary injunction
o Notice required for ex-parte temporary injunctions

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-27

Figure 2: Motion to dissolve temporary injunction
2 Conn. Practice Book (1997), Form 106.18

No. : Superior Court

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

(First Named Plaintiff)

v. : at

(First Named Defendant) : (Date)

MOTION T O DISSOLVE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

The defendant in the above entitled action respectfully represents

1. O n the Superior Court (or the Honorable

, a judge of the superior

court) issued a temporary injunction in the above entitled action, as of record

appears

2. (State facts why injunction should be dissolved )

3 . (State reasons for dissolution ]

Wherefore the defendant moves that the temporary injunction

be dissolved.

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-28

 Order

The foregoing motion having been heard, it is hereby ORDERED:

GRANTED/DENIED.

THE COURT

BY: _________________________

Judge/Clerk

Certification

I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed on (date)

___________________

to: (List pro se parties and counsel of record and their addresses.)

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

_________________________
(Name),
(Attorney or Pro Se)

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-29

 Section 3: Enforcement of Injunction
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

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. Stat. (2021)

Chapter 871. Courts
You can visit your
§ 51-33. Punishment for contempt of court
local law library or
search the most § 51-33a. Criminal contempt
recent statutes and
public acts on the Chapter 916. Injunctions
Connecticut General
Assembly website to
confirm that you are
using the most up-
to-date statutes.

You can visit

COURT your
RULES: • Conn. Practice Book (2022)
local law library or
search the most Chapter 1. Scope of Rules.
Amendments to the
recent statutes and § 1-13A. Contempt
Practice Book (Court
public acts on the
Rules) are published § 1-14. —Criminal contempt
Connecticut General in
the Connecticut
Assembly websiteLaw
to § 1-16. —Summary criminal contempt
Journal that
confirm and you
posted
are § 1-17. —Deferral of proceedings
online.
using the most up-to- § 1-18. —Nonsummary contempt proceedings
date statutes.
§ 1-19. —Judicial authority disqualification in
Amendments to the
Practice Book (Court nonsummary contempt proceedings
Rules) are published in § 1-20. —Where no right to jury trial in nonsummary
the Connecticut Law proceeding
Journal and posted
online. § 1-21. —Nonsummary judgment

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-30

 § 1-21A. —Civil contempt

FORMS: • 2 Conn. Practice Book (1997)

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

• 3A Connecticut Practice Series, Connecticut Civil Practice

Forms, 4th ed., by Joel M. Kaye et al., Thomson West,
2004, with 2021 supplement (also available on Westlaw).
Form S-154. Motion to show cause why defendant
should not be punished for failure to obey injunction

• 14A Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms Injunctions, Thomson

West, 2013 (Also available on Westlaw).
§ 86. Affidavit—Of contempt—Violation of preliminary
injunction restraining or compelling action
§ 87. Affidavit—Of contempt—Violation of preliminary
injunction restraining action

CASES: • Birkhold v. Birkhold, 343 Conn. 786, 811, 276 A.3d 414
(2022). “The present case involves allegations of indirect
Once you have civil contempt. ‘A refusal to comply with an injunctive
identified useful decree is an indirect contempt of court because it occurs
cases, it is important outside the presence of the trial court.’ (Internal quotation
to update the cases
before you rely on marks omitted.) Brody v. Brody, 315 Conn. 300, 317, 105
them. Updating case A.3d 887 (2015). ‘[C]ivil contempt is committed when a
law means checking person violates an order of [the] court which requires that
to see if the cases person in specific and definite language to do or refrain
are still good law.
You can contact your from doing an act or series of acts.’ (Emphasis omitted;
local law librarian to internal quotation marks omitted.) Gabriel v. Gabriel, 324
learn about the tools Conn. 324, 333, 152 A.3d 1230 (2016).”
available to you to
update cases.
• Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University at Middletown et
al. v. Wesleyan University et al., 338 Conn. 189, 238, 257
A.3d 874 (2021). “[W]e conclude that the trial court
abused its discretion in issuing an injunction that requires
Wesleyan (1) to reinstate the DKE House as a program
housing option, (2) to enter into a new Greek Organization
Standards Agreement with the plaintiffs, and (3) to afford
the plaintiffs three years in which to coeducate. We reach
this conclusion primarily because, depending on how the
ambiguous terms of the trial court's injunction are
interpreted, either the order is unenforceable and,
therefore, a nullity, or it impermissibly expands the terms
of the parties' contractual relationship beyond those to
which they agreed.”

• City of Stamford v. Ten Rugby Street, LLC, 164 Conn. App.

49, 81, 137 A.3d 781, (2016). “The trial court was within its
discretion to grant the injunction requiring the removal of
the crushers, even though it may also prevent the
defendant from screening his own material using the
crushers. Screening the defendant’s own material was not
listed in the cease and desist order, but it was within the

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-31

Once you have
court’s discretion to determine that the only way to prevent
identified useful the defendant from crushing in violation of the regulations
cases, it is important was to order the removal of the crushers, even if they can
to update the cases also be used for screening.”
before you rely on
them. Updating case
law means checking • Commissioner of Environmental Protection et al. v.
to see if the cases Farricielli et al., 307 Conn. 787, 812-814, 59 A. 3d 789
are still good law. (2013). “Consistent with the trial court's apt observation
You can contact your
local law librarian to
that, ‘it would certainly frustrate our judicial system if one
learn about the tools subject to an injunction were able to avoid that injunction
available to you to by simply transferring the parcel subject also to such
update cases. injunction to a new corporation,’ we conclude that the
injunctions in this case must be viewed as in rem in nature
with respect to subsequent tenants such as Modern, even
when rendered in personam against the defendants in the
underlying action. Thus, tenants who subsequently enter
properties affected by injunctions imposed by courts to
protect the public interest share the necessary identity of
legal interest with the owners of such properties to render
those orders enforceable against them as nonparties.”

• 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

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-32

Once you have absence of the accused.’ Welsh v. Barber, 52 Conn. 147,
identified useful 157 (1884).”
cases, it is important
to update the cases
before you rely on
• Walden v. Siebert, 102 Conn. 353, 358, 128 A. 702 (1925).
them. Updating case “It is the doing of the illegal act which is enjoined, and it
law means checking makes no difference what means are employed by a
to see if the cases defendant in so doing. These defendants were enjoined not
are still good law.
You can contact your
to continue building the fence, and it was just as feasible to
local law librarian to interrupt the work of an independent contractor as that of
learn about the tools one who was not. If any damage enured to them from such
available to you to an interruption, the injunction had been granted upon filing
update cases.
of a substantial bond by plaintiffs, so that defendants were
immune from loss in case they prevailed in the action.”

• Deming v. Bradstreet, 85 Conn. 650, 84 A. 116 (1912). “A

temporary injunction is a preliminary order of 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. It was therefore the duty of these defendants to read
the temporary injunction in the light of the purpose of the
original suit, as shown by the averments of the complaint
and the relief prayed for in that suit.
But it was not their duty to determine what order was
required to be made in order to properly protect the rights
of the parties during the pendency of the original action.
That was a question for the judge making the preliminary
order. In making that order, it was his duty to consider the
averments and prayers for relief in the original action, to
base his order upon them, and to frame it in such terms
that, when fairly interpreted, the persons enjoined would
clearly understand what acts they were restrained from
doing.” (p. 659).

“Reading the injunction order either by itself, or in

connection with the averments and prayers of the original
complaint, we are of opinion that it does not so clearly
prohibit the acts of the defendants, in paying the reporters
under the circumstances stated, and under the authority of
resolution 133, as required the court to adjudge them guilty
of contempt.” (p. 660).

WEST KEY • Injunction # 1711-1810 [Violation and enforcement]

NUMBERS: # 1711-1760. Nature and factors of enforcement.
# 1761-1810 Proceedings for enforcement.

ENCYCLOPEDIAS: • 42 Am Jur 2d Injunctions, Thomson West, 2020 (Also

available on Westlaw).
§§ 296-301. Compliance with or violation and
enforcement of injunction

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-33

Encyclopedias and • 43A CJS Injunctions, Thomson West, 2014 (Also available
ALRs are available in on Westlaw).
print at some law VII. Violation and punishment
library locations and
accessible online at
all law library • 91 A.L.R. Fed. 270, Media’s Dissemination Of Material In
locations. Violation Of Injunction Or Restraining Order As Contempt—
Federal Cases, by Edward L. Raymond, Jr., Thomson West,
Online databases are
available for
1989.
in-library use.
Remote access is not • 7 A.L.R.4th 893, Violation Of State Court Order By One
available. Other Than Party As Contempt, Thomson West, 1981.

• 85 A.L.R.3d 895, Right Of Injured Party To Award Of

Compensatory Damages Or Fine In Contempt Proceedings,
Thomson West (1978).

TEXTS & • 2 Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure, 3rd ed., by

TREATISES: Renee Bevacqua Bollier et al., Atlantic Law Book Co., 2002,
with 2003 supplement.
Each of our law Chapter 19. Extraordinary procedures
libraries own the § 227. Injunction and Temporary Injunctions
Connecticut treatises h. Violations of injunctions
cited. You can
contact us or visit
our catalog to • 3 Connecticut Practice Series, Connecticut Civil Practice
determine which of Forms, 4th ed., by Joel M. Kaye et al., Thomson West,
our law libraries own 2004, with 2021 supplement (also available on Westlaw).
the other treatises
cited or to search for
Authors’ Comments following Form 606.3. Motion for
more treatises. contempt- Injunctions
o Civil contempt
References to online o Review of civil contempt by trial court
databases refer to
in-library use of
o Criminal contempt distinguished
these databases. o Defenses
Remote access is not o Violations of injunction
available.
• 3A Connecticut Practice Series, Connecticut Civil Practice
Forms, 4th ed., by Joel M. Kaye et al., Thomson West,
2004, with 2021 supplement (also available on Westlaw).
Authors’ Comments following Form S-154. Motion to
show cause why defendant should not be punished for
failure to obey injunction
o Injunctions-violations of, generally
o Civil contempt, generally
o Defenses
o Subsequent dissolution of injunction

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-34

Figure 3: Motion for Contempt—Injunction
2 Conn. Practice Book (1997), Form 106.3

MOTION FOR CONTEMPT - INJUNCTION

The plaintiff respectfully represents

1. The plaintiff brought this action returnable to this court on

claiming a (temporary) injunction and other relief.

2. Thereafter a (temporary) injunction was issued by this court (or the

Hon. , a judge of this court) as follows: (Quote order contained in injunction, or

annex a copy and refer to it as an exhibit attached)

3. The injunction was duly served on the defendant as appears by return

thereon endorsed.

4. Thereafter the defendant violated and disobeyed the (temporary)

injunction in that (state violation alleged).

Wherefore the plaintiff requests

1. That the defendant be cited to show cause why he should not be

adjudged in contempt for the violation and be punished therefor.

2. That he be compelled to (state action defendant should take to

restore situation to that in which it was when the injunction was issued).

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-35

 Section 4: Specific Subjects of Injunctive
Protection or Relief
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE: • Bibliographic resources relating to specific subjects of

injunctive protection and relief in Connecticut.

TREATED • Family violence restraining and protective orders, see

ELSEWHERE: Domestic Violence and Civil Protection Orders in
Connecticut (Research Guide)

STATUTES: • Conn. Gen. Stat. (2021)

Chapter 124. Zoning
You can visit your § 8-8. Appeal from board to court. Mediation. Review
local law library or
search the most
by Appeal Court.
recent statutes and
public acts on the Chapter 916. Injunctions
Connecticut General
Assembly website to
confirm that you are
using the most up-
to-date statutes.

LEGISLATIVE
You can visit your • OLR Backgrounder: Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
local law library or
search the most
Duke Chen, Connecticut General Assembly, Office of
Officestatutes
recent of Legislative
and Legislative Research Report, 2011-R-0494 (December 29,
Research
public reports
acts on the 2011).
summarizeGeneral
Connecticut and
analyze the
Assembly law in
website to
effect on
confirm the
that youdate
areof • Enforcement of Zoning Orders, Kevin E. McCarthy,
each the
using report’s
most up-to- Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative
date statutes. Current
publication.
Research Report, 2005-R-0406 (April 20, 2005).
law may be different
from what is
discussed in the • Frivolous Appeals and Other Freedom of Information
reports. Issues, Mary M. Janicki, Connecticut General Assembly,
Office of Legislative Research Report, 99-R-0735 (July 15,
1999).
Office of Legislative
Research reports
COURT RULES:
summarize and
• Conn. Practice Book (2022)
analyze the law in § 4-5. Notice Required for Ex Parte Temporary
Amendments to the
effect on the date of Injunctions
Practice Book (Court
each report’s
Rules) are published
publication. Current
§ 11-9. Disclosure of Previous Applications
in the
law Connecticut
may be different
Law
fromJournal
what is and
discussed
posted in the
online.
reports.
Amendments to the
FORMS:
Practice Book (Court
• 2 Conn. Practice Book (1997)
Rules) are published in Form 104.6. Injunction against interference with flow of
the Connecticut Law surface waters (Figure 4).
Journal and posted
online.
Form 104.5. Injunction to restrain violation of zoning
ordinance (Figure 5).

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-36

 • 14A Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms Injunctions,
Thomson West, 2013 (Also available on Westlaw).
§ 6. Complaint, petition, or declaration—For permanent
injunction—Seeking temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction--General form
§ 15. Complaint, petition, or declaration—For equitable
relief from nuisance—Encroachment on adjacent
property—Tree
§ 16. Complaint, petition, or declaration—For equitable
relief from nuisance—Interference with light, air or
view—Spite fence
§ 23. Complaint, petition, or declaration—For injunction
and damages—Interference with plaintiff’s civil
rights
§ 28. Complaint, petition, or declaration—For permanent
injunction—Civil harassment
§ 42. Ex parte motion—For temporary restraining order
and order to show cause—Interference with
property rights
§ 48. Affidavit—In support of ex parte motion for
temporary restraining order
§ 55. Motion—To dismiss application for preliminary
injunction—Various grounds
§ 57. Answer—To complaint for injunction and
damages—Denying unlawful interference with
plaintiff’s civil rights

CASES: Actions and other legal proceedings

Once you have • United Public Service Employees Union, Cops Local 062 v.
identified useful
Town of Hamden et al., 209 Conn. App. 116, 130, 267 A.3d
cases, it is important
to update the cases 239 (2021). “The plaintiff in the present case, just as in
before you rely on Nosik, filed an application for a temporary injunction
them. Updating case seeking to enjoin the defendant from continuing with the
law means checking
disciplinary proceedings against Eaton until the criminal
to see if the cases
are still good law. proceedings are resolved. Both Nosik and the present case
You can contact your involve requests to enjoin ongoing administrative
local law librarian to disciplinary proceedings—matters that were not pending on
learn about the tools
the court's own docket—premised entirely on the existence
available to you to
update cases. of parallel criminal proceedings pending in court. According
to the Second Circuit, the proper standard to apply in such
a case is the standard for adjudicating a temporary
injunction. See id.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the court

improperly reviewed the plaintiff's application for a
temporary injunction pursuant to the standard for
adjudicating a motion for a stay of civil proceedings. The
court should have applied the familiar standard that governs
an application for a temporary injunction. Application of the
proper standard involves factual determinations that must
be made by the trial court, such as whether the plaintiff will

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-37

Once you have suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief.”
identified useful
cases, it is important
• N.D.R. Liuzzi, Inc. et al. v. Lighthouse Litho, LLC, 144 Conn.
to update the cases
before you rely on App. 613, 75 A. 3d 694 (2013). “On November 28, 2011,
them. Updating case the clerk of the court issued a summary process execution
law means checking for possession. On December 22, 2011, the defendant filed
to see if the cases
a motion to quash execution in the nature of a writ of audita
are still good law.
You can contact your querela and an application for an ex parte temporary
local law librarian to injunction pursuant to General Statutes § 52-471, [fn2]
learn about the tools seeking to restrain the plaintiffs from executing on the
available to you to
judgment until the motion to quash execution was decided
update cases.
or ‘until further order from the court.’ The court granted the
defendant's application for an ex parte temporary injunction
on the same day.” (p. 616)

“[fn2] General Statutes § 52-471 (a) provides in relevant

part: 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. . .
(Internal quotations omitted).” (p. 616, n.2)

• Giulietti v. Giulietti, 65 Conn. App. 813, 847, 784 A.2d 905

(2001). “A ‘court has a duty, as well as power, to protect its
jurisdiction over a controversy in order to decree complete
and final justice between the parties and may issue an
injunction for that purpose, restraining proceedings in other
courts.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Corbin v.
Corbin, 26 Conn. Sup. 443, 450, 226 A.2d 799 (1967). The
court, therefore, clearly had jurisdiction to consider and
grant the restraining order sought by the plaintiffs, which
was merely ancillary to the probate proceedings.”

• City of Waterbury v. Commission on Human Rights and

Opportunities, 160 Conn. 226, 227-228, 278 A.2d 771
(1971). “The city of Waterbury brought this action against
the commission on human rights and opportunities, an
administrative agency of the state, the commission's
director, and three of the commission's hearing examiners.
In its complaint, the plaintiff sought temporary and
permanent injunctions to prevent the defendants from
proceeding with a hearing pursuant to General Statutes 53-
36 on a complaint filed by an individual claiming that the
Waterbury police department had violated 53-34 of the
General Statutes.”

Corporate franchises

• City of Groton v. Yankee Gas Services Co., 224 Conn. 675,

681, 620 A.2d 771 (1993). “If a statute confers an
exclusive franchise, an injunction is appropriate to prevent
infringement of the franchise rights. See New England

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-38

 Railroad Co. v. Central Railway & Electric Co., 69 Conn. 47,
Once you have
identified useful 55, 36 A. 1061 (1897).”
cases, it is important
to update the cases Discrimination in the Workplace
before you rely on
them. Updating case
law means checking • Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90, 143,
to see if the cases 272 A.3d 603 (2022). “As the trial court recognized, § 46a-
are still good law. 86(a) clearly grants the commission the authority to issue
You can contact your
reasonable injunctive relief tailored to eliminating the
local law librarian to
learn about the tools discriminatory practice and its effects.”
available to you to
update cases. Dogs

• Adger v. Paw Haven LLC, Superior Court, Judicial District of

New Haven at New Haven, No. NNH-CV21-6115907-S (Aug.
10, 2022) (2022 WL 3225328). “’At common law, property
owners have the right to seek an injunction as well as
damages for a nuisance affecting the enjoyment of their
property.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Reichenbach v. Kraska Enterprises, LLC, 105 Conn. App.
461, 468, 938 A.2d 1238 (2008). ‘In a nuisance action, the
trier of fact may properly consider discomfort and
annoyance.’ Id., 471. In fact, ‘[i]nterference with the
reasonable use and enjoyment of one's property caused by
the howling and barking of dogs has been held to constitute
a nuisance which may be enjoined by the courts at the
request of neighboring residents who are seriously
annoyed.... Connecticut has early held that disturbing
noises made by animals on adjoining properties may be a
nuisance affording grounds for relief by means
of injunction.... This is in accord with the general rule that
every property owner has a duty to make a reasonable use
of his own property so as to occasion no unnecessary
damage or annoyance to his neighbor.’ (Citations omitted;
internal quotation marks omitted.) Herbert v. Smyth, 155
Conn. 78, 81–82, 230 A.2d 235 (1967). Based upon the
facts set forth above, the court finds that the plaintiffs have
shown a likelihood of success on the merits and that some
injunctive relief is appropriate.”

Matters relating to property

• Kloiber v. Jellen, 207 Conn. App. 616, 622-623, 263 A.2d

952 (2021). “By way of relief, they sought, inter alia, ‘[a]n
immediate injunction requiring the defendants to cease and
desist allowing the flow of their surface water runoff to
enter over, under and onto’ the subject property. As our
Supreme Court has explained, ‘[t]itle is an essential
element in a plaintiff's case, whe[n] an injunction is sought
to restrain a trespass ....’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Socha v. Bordeau, 277 Conn. 579, 586, 893 A.2d
422 (2006). When both monetary damages for trespass and
an injunction are sought, as is the case here, ‘both title to

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-39

Once you have
and possession of the disputed area must be proved ... and
identified useful the burden of proving them is on the plaintiff.’ (Citations
cases, it is important omitted.) McCullough v. Waterfront Park Assn., Inc., 32
to update the cases Conn. App. 746, 749, 630 A.2d 1372, cert. denied, 227
before you rely on
them. Updating case
Conn. 933, 632 A.2d 707 (1993). Because the plaintiffs by
law means checking their own admission do not hold title to the subject
to see if the cases property, we conclude that they lack standing to maintain
are still good law. the trespass action alleged in their complaint.”
You can contact your
local law librarian to
learn about the tools • FirstLight Hydro Generating Co. v. Stewart, 328 Conn. 668,
available to you to 685, 182 A.3d 67 (2018). “The defendants also contend
update cases. that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering
injunctive relief that was overly broad and exceeded the
scope of the relief sought by the plaintiff. Specifically, the
defendants assert that two of the structures that the trial
court ordered the defendants to remove—namely, the lower
patio and the adjacent retaining wall—were allowed under
the permits previously issued by the plaintiff.

For the reasons that follow, consistent with the parties'

representations at oral argument before this court, we
conclude that the trial court's order must be read so as to
require the defendants to remove the lower patio and the
adjacent retaining wall only to the extent that they are
currently not in compliance with the original permits and
then to allow the defendants to rebuild those structures in a
manner that complies with those permits.”

• Lyme Land Conservation Tr., Inc. v. Platner, 325 Conn. 737,

753–54, 159 A.3d 666 (2017). “By broadly allowing for
injunctive and equitable relief, the declaration and the two
statutes clearly and unambiguously support the propriety of
the trial court's order. An injunction is an order for a party
to do ‘some specified act or ... to undo some wrong or
injury’; Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990); and is an
equitable remedy whose issuance depends on a balancing of
the equities between the parties. Hartford Electric Light Co.
v. Levitz, 173 Conn. 15, 21, 376 A.2d 381 (1977). Similarly,
a court's power to order equitable relief is broad and
flexible. ‘[C]ourts exercising their equitable powers are
charged with formulating fair and practical remedies
appropriate to the specific dispute.... In doing equity, [a]
court has the power to adapt equitable remedies to the
particular circumstances of each particular case....
[E]quitable discretion is not governed by fixed principles
and definite rules.... Rather, implicit therein is conscientious
judgment directed by law and reason and looking to a just
result.’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks
omitted.) Wall Systems, Inc. v. Pompa, 324 Conn. 718,
736, 154 A.3d 989 (2017). Here, the court entered a
common-sense order that directed the property to be
remediated in a way that would approximate its earlier
condition, but absent elements that all parties considered to

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-40

Once you have be undesirable. This order was well within the court's
identified useful authority.”
cases, it is important
to update the cases
before you rely on
• Geiger et al. v. Carey, 170 Conn. App. 459, 154 A.3d 1093
them. Updating case (2017). “…The deprivation from virtually the entire front
law means checking yard of the plaintiffs of the lake view denies the plaintiff
to see if the cases tenant his full enjoyment of the property. Further, such a
are still good law.
You can contact your
deprivation is a harm for which there is no adequate
local law librarian to remedy at law…Therefore, the court orders the defendant to
learn about the tools remove the front most section of the fence….The defendant
available to you to is further enjoined permanently from placing any additional
update cases.
structure on the site of this fence section ordered removed
by this court.” (p. 489)

“The court permanently enjoins Gordon Geiger from (1)

storing materials on the right-of-way, (2) blocking access
via the right-of-way…(3) sitting or loitering in the right-of-
way, or (4) performing operations on the composition of the
material in the right-of-way. Such activities have created
and/or would create harm to the defendant for which there
is no adequate remedy at law.” (p. 494-495).

• Chase and Chase, LLC v. Waterbury Realty, LLC, 138 Conn.

App. 289, 295, 50 A.3d 968 (2012). “The court granted the
plaintiff a permanent injunction barring the defendant ‘from
constructing any obstacle that would interfere with the
plaintiff's use and enjoyment of said easement’ and ordered
the defendant to remove the remainder of ‘the fence that it
constructed on the boundary of the North Main and East
Farm properties and [to] restore the East Farm Street
driveway to its former condition in the area where the fence
was constructed.’”

• Hackbarth v. Hackbarth, 62 Conn. App. 490, 499, 767 A.2d

1276 (2001). “Without the use arrangement [for summer
cottage], the purpose of the trust, namely, its summer use
by the beneficiaries, would be thwarted. Injunctive relief
was the only remedy because no adequate remedy at law
existed. Damages were insufficient to obtain the requisite
relief.

We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to show that

irreparable harm would ensue unless the court awarded
injunctive relief, that the plaintiffs had no adequate remedy
at law and that the court neither abused its discretion in
rendering its decision nor acted on an improper statement
of the law.”

Personal rights and duties

• Buckner v. Shorehaven Golf Club, Inc., 13 Conn. App. 503,

504, 537 A.2d 532 (1988). “It is an elementary doctrine
that one who seeks injunctive relief must prove that absent

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-41

 the issuance of the injunction he will suffer irreparable
Once you have
identified useful harm. ‘An injunction is a harsh remedy and our courts have
cases, it is important consistently held that its issuance is only proper in order to
to update the cases prevent irreparable injury.’ Everett v. Pabilonia, 11 Conn.
before you rely on
App. 171, 178, 526 A.2d 543 (1987), and cases cited
them. Updating case
law means checking therein. Further, it is beyond dispute that the granting or
to see if the cases denial of a request for injunctive relief ‘is not mandatory
are still good law. but is within the sound discretion of the trial court.’ Id. In
You can contact your
the present case, the trial court expressly found that ‘the
local law librarian to
learn about the tools plaintiff has not suffered irreparable harm.’”
available to you to
update cases. Public officers

• Fleet National Bank v. Burke, 45 Conn. Supp. 566, 570-

571, 727 A.2d 823 (1998). “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).”

Public welfare

• Commissioner of Correction v. Coleman, 303 Conn. 800,

811, 38 A. 3d 84 (2012). “The defendant first claims that
the permanent injunction violates his state common-law
right to bodily integrity. Specifically, he contends that the
trial court improperly determined that this right is
outweighed by the commissioner's claimed interests in
preserving life, preventing suicide, protecting innocent third
parties and preserving the security and orderly
administration of Connecticut prisons. We disagree.”

• Stepney v. Town of Fairfield, 263 Conn. 558, 559, 821 A.2d

725 (2003). “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether
the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the action by the
plaintiff, Stepney, LLC, seeking to enjoin the defendant, the
town of Fairfield, acting through the town's board of health
and its director, Arthur Leffert, from enforcing a certain
town health code ordinance. We conclude that, because the
plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, the
trial court improperly exercised jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment in favor
of the plaintiff and order that the action be dismissed.”

Restrictive Covenants

• Daswani Clothiers, LLC v. Matthew Benever et al., Superior

Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, No. HHD-
CV20-6134255-S (September 28, 2021) (2021 WL
4912571). “Daswani has no adequate remedy at law.
‘Adequate remedy at law means a remedy vested in the
complainant, to which he may, at all times, resort, at his

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-42

Once you have own option, fully and freely, without let or hindrance.’
identified useful (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cohen v. Second
cases, it is important Taxing District, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford,
to update the cases Docket No. CV-05-4006295- S, 2005 WL 2496917, at *4
before you rely on
them. Updating case (September 13, 2005, Karazin, J.). ‘[W]hile the plaintiff
law means checking could maintain a claim for damages as to each violation that
to see if the cases causes injury the difficulty of proof and the inefficiency of
are still good law. repetitive suits render inadequate the use of successive
You can contact your
local law librarian to remedies at law, and injunctive relief is therefore warranted
learn about the tools to protect the plaintiff from harm which the restrictive
available to you to covenant was intended to prevent.’ (Internal quotation
update cases. marks omitted.) Sabatasso v. Bruno, Superior Court,
judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-03-0284486-
S, 2004 WL 886968, at *3 (April 8, 2004, Tanzer, J.) [36
Conn. L. Rptr. 851].”

• New Country Motor Car Group, Inc. et al. v. Paulo Vilca et

al., Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at
Stamford, No. FST-CV21-6051531-S (September 27, 2021)
(2021 WL 4896153). “In cases seeking a temporary
injunction to enforce a noncompetition provision in an
employment agreement courts have concluded the first and
second elements, lack of adequate remedy at law and
irreparable harm, are moderated somewhat by the nature of
the claim. See ATI Engineering Services, LLC v. Millard,
2018 WL 6016705 (Conn.Super. 2018) (Pierson, J.);
Sabatasso v. Bruno, 2004 WL 886968 (Conn.Super. 2004)
(Tanzer, J.) [36 Conn. L. Rptr. 851]; POP Radio LP v. News
America Marketing In- Store, Inc., 49 Conn.Sup. 566, 576
(2005) (Adams, J.) [40 Conn. L. Rptr. 332].”
---
“There seems to be a split in the Superior Court decisions as
to whether proof of imminent irreparable harm and
inadequate remedy at law is necessary to enjoin breach of
restrictive covenants in employment agreements with some
courts holding those elements are assumed and others that
some proof is necessary. This Court agrees with Judge
Adams in Pop Radio, 49 Conn.Sup. at 576, that a
‘moderated level of proof’ applies and with Judge Brazzel-
Massaro in Xplore Technology, 2010 WL 4277765, that
there is a rebuttable presumption that these elements are
satisfied in cases in which defendant goes to work for a
competitor.”

Uniform Trade Secrets Act

• BTS, USA, Inc. v. Executive Perspectives, LLC, 166 Conn.

App. 474, 497, 142 A.3d 342 (2016). “The trial court
found: ‘Alternatively, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.
CUTSA [Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act] does allow
for the granting of injunctive relief, in appropriate cases, in
addition to or in lieu of damages…§35-52(a). However, nor

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-43

 Once you have has [the] plaintiff established that injunctive relief is
identified useful appropriate.’”
cases, it is important
to update the cases
before you rely on
Wetlands and Watercourses
them. Updating case
law means checking • Barbara Kelly, Inland Wetlands Officer et al. v. Laura
to see if the cases Thweatt et al., Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland at
are still good law.
You can contact your
Rockville, No. TTD-CV19-5013098-S (February 22, 2021)
local law librarian to (2021 WL 929947) (2021 Conn. Super. LEXIS 151). “The
learn about the tools plaintiffs request a permanent injunction prohibiting the
available to you to defendants from performing any further regulated
update cases.
activities, inclusive of filling and excavating, in or on the
wetlands, upland review area and watercourse on the
property. Cases that involve inland wetlands violations
pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-36 et seq. do not
require a finding of irreparable harm as a prerequisite for a
permanent injunction. See Conservation Commission of
Simsbury v. Price, 193 Conn. 414, 429, 479 A.2d 187
(1984). Based on the extensive degradation and damage
caused by the defendants' regulated activity and failure to
take any remediation efforts, the court hereby enjoins the
defendants from conducting any further regulated activity
in or on the wetlands, upland review area and watercourses
on the property.”

Zoning Regulations

• Town of Enfield et al. v. Joseph H. Messier, Superior Court,

Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville, No. TTD-CV19-
6018273-S (April 15, 2021) (2021 WL 1912434) (2021
Conn. Super. LEXIS 640). “In finding a violation of the
regulations, this court must determine whether the violation
satisfies the willfulness standard in accordance with § 8-12
to assess the damages and relief sought by the plaintiffs. ‘A
decision to grant or deny an injunction must be compatible
with the equities in the case, which should take into
account the gravity and willfulness of the violation, as well
as the potential harm to the defendant ... In seeking an
injunction pursuant to [General Statutes] § 8-12, the town
is relieved of the normal burden of proving irreparable harm
and the lack of an adequate remedy at law because § 8-12
by implication assumes that no adequate alternative
remedy exists and that the injury was irreparable ... The
town need prove only that the statutes or ordinances were
violated ... The proof of violations does not, however,
deprive the court of discretion and does not obligate the
court mechanically to grant the requested injunction for
every violation.’”

ENCYCLOPEDIAS: • 42 Am Jur 2d Injunctions, Thomson West, 2020 (Also

available on Westlaw).
III. Kinds of Rights Protected and Matters Controllable
§§ 49-52. In General

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-44

Encyclopedias and §§ 53-74. Property Rights
ALRs are available in §§ 75-112. Personal Rights
print at some law
library locations and
§§ 113-115. Political Rights
accessible online at §§ 116-142. Contract Rights
all law library §§ 143-149. Violation of Criminal or Penal Laws
locations. §§ 150-176. Acts of Public Bodies or Officials
Online databases are
§§ 177-205. Injunction against Institution or
available for Maintenance of Judicial Proceedings
in-library use. §§ 219-230. Injunction Against Criminal Prosecutions
Remote access is not and
available.
Arrests

• 43A CJS Injunctions, Thomson West, 2014 (Also available

on Westlaw).
IV. Subjects of protection and relief
§§ 103-125. Actions and other legal proceedings
§§ 126-156. Property, conveyances, and incumbrances
§§ 157-192. Contracts
§§ 193-198. Corporate franchises, management, and
dealings
§§ 205-265. Public entities, agencies, and officers;
Government matters
§§ 266-276. Public welfare, property and rights
§§ 277-299. Personal rights and duties
§§ 300-307. Criminal acts, conspiracies, prosecutions,
and judgments

• See Table 5 for list of Annotations

TEXTS & • 9A Connecticut Practice Series, Land Use and Practice, 4th
TREATISES: ed., by Robert Fuller, Thomson West, 2015, with 2021
supplement (also available on Westlaw.)
Each of our law Chapter 41. Injunctions and Temporary Restraining
libraries own the Orders
Connecticut treatises
cited. You can
§ 41. 1. In general; stays of proceedings
contact us or visit § 41.2. Temporary restraining orders; General
our catalog to Statutes § 8-8
determine which of § 41.3. Municipal zoning enforcement
our law libraries own
the other treatises
§ 41.4. Temporary injunctions
cited or to search for § 41.5. Estoppel to enforce zoning regulations by
more treatises. injunction; municipal estoppel
§ 41.6. Private zoning enforcement
References to online
databases refer to
§ 41.7. Availability of other remedies
in-library use of § 41.8. Other uses of injunction actions
these databases.
Remote access is not • 2 Connecticut Practice Series, Connecticut Civil Practice
available.
Forms, 4th ed., by Joel M. Kaye et al., Thomson West,
2004, with 2021 supplement (also available on Westlaw).
Authors’ Comments following:
o Form 104.4. Injunction against nuisance
o Form 104.5. Injunction to restrain violation of zoning
ordinance

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-45

 o Form 104.6. Injunction against interference with
flow of surface waters

• 2 Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure, 3rd ed., by

Renee Bevacqua Bollier et al., Atlantic Law Book Co., 2002,
with 2003 supplement.
Chapter 19. Extraordinary procedures
§ 227. Injunction and Temporary Injunctions

• 5 Zoning Law and Practice, 4th ed., by E.C. Yokley, 2004,

with 2012 supplement (also available on Lexis).
Chapter 28. Injunction

LAW REVIEWS: • Eugene Volokh, Overboard Injunctions against Speech

(Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases), 45 Harv. J. L. &
Public access to law Pub. Pol'y 147 (2022).
review databases is
available on-site at
each of our law • Eugene Volokh, Anti-Libel Injunctions, 168 U. Penn. L. Rev.
libraries. 73 (2019).

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-46

Table 5: Selected ALR Annotations on Subjects of Injunctive Protection
or Relief
Selected
ALR Annotations on
Subjects of Injunctive Protection or Relief
Appeal and • 85 A.L.R.2d 772, Power Of The Court To Enjoin Enforcement Of
error Its Judgments As Affected By Previous Affirmance, by D. E.
Evins, Thomson West, 1962.

Absentee • 97 A.L.R.2d 257, Proceedings Under Absentee Voters’ Laws, by

voters’ law M. C. Dransfield, Thomson West, 1964.

Animals • 90 A.L.R.5th 619, Keeping Of Domestic Animals As Constituting

Public Or Private Nuisance, by Philip White, Jr., Thomson West,
2001.

Attorneys • 1 A.L.R.4th 1164, Rights Of Attorneys Leaving Firm With Respect

leaving law To Firm Clients, by Charles C. Marvel, Thomson West, 1980.
firm
• 65 A.L.R.2d 550, Financial Hardship Or Inability To Pay Taxes As
Bankruptcy Rendering Inapplicable Statutes Denying Relief By Injunction
Against Assessment Or Collection Of Taxes, by M. L. Cross,
Thomson West, 1959.

• 40 A.L.R.2d 663, Bankruptcy Court’s Injunction Against Mortgage

Or Lien Enforcement Proceedings Commenced, Before
Bankruptcy, In Another Court, by W. J. Dunn, Thomson West,
1955.

Child custody • 4 A.L.R.2d 7, Jurisdiction To Award Custody Of Child Having

Legal Domicil In Another State, by J. V. Dempsey, Thomson
West, 1949.

Children’s • 32 A.L.R.3d 1127, Children’s Playground As Nuisance, by

playground Jonathan M. Purver, Thomson West, 1970.

Commercial • 11 A.L.R. Fed. 556, Standing Of Private Citizen, Association, Or

development Organization To Maintain Action In Federal Court For Injunctive
Relief Against Commercial Development Or Activities, Or
Construction Of Highways, Or Other Governmental Projects,
Alleged To Be Harmful To Environment In Public Parks, Other
Similar Areas, Or Wildlife Refuges, by Jerald J. Director, Thomson
West, 1972.

Consumer • 115 A.L.R.5th 709, Right To Private Action Under State

protection Consumer Protection Act—Equitable Relief Available, by Bob
Cohen, Thomson West, 2004.

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-47

Selected ALR Annotations [Cont’d]

Covenant not • 12 A.L.R.5th 847, Enforceability, By Purchaser Or Successor Of

to compete Business, Of Covenant Not To Compete Entered Into By
Predecessor And Its Employees, Thomson West, 1993.

Crops • 87 A.L.R.2d 732, Validity, Construction, And Effect Of Contract

Between Grower Of Vegetable Or Fruit Crops, And Purchasing
Processor, Packer, Or Canner, by H. C. Lind, Thomson West,
1963.
§ 27. Suit in equity; specific performance or injunctive relief
(p. 778).

Customer lists • 28 A.L.R.3d 7, Former Employee’s Duty, In Absence Of Express

Contract, Not To Solicit Former Employer’s Customers Or
Otherwise Use His Knowledge Of Customer Lists Acquired In
Earlier Employment, by K. H. Larsen, Thomson West, 1969.

Discrimination • 136 A.L.R. Fed. 1, Validity, Construction, and Application of §

302 of Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.A. §12182),
Prohibiting Discrimination on Basis of Disability by Owners or
Operators of Places of Public Accommodation, by John A.
Bourdeau, Thomson West, 1997.

Divorce and • 68 A.L.R.4th 929, Divorce And Separation: Effect Of Court Order
separation Prohibiting Sale Or Transfer Of Property On Party’s Right To
Change Beneficiary Of Insurance Policy, by David P. Chapus,
Thomson West, 1989.

• 54 A.L.R.2d 1240, Injunction Against Suit In Another State Or

Country For Divorce Or Separation, b E. H. Schopler, Thomson
West, 1957.

Eminent • 93 A.L.R.2d 465, Injunction Against Exercise Of Power Of

domain Eminent Domain, by M. C. Dransfield, Thomson West, 1964.

Environmental • 25 A.L.R.7th Art. 3, Private Cause of Action Under State

protection Hazardous Waste Regulations, by George L. Blum, Thomson
West, 2017.

• 158 A.L.R. Fed. 519, Requirement That There Be Continuing

Violations To Maintain Citizen Suit Under Federal Environmental
Protection Statutes—Post-Gwaltney Cases, by Deborah F.
Buckman, Thomson West, 1999.

• 86 A.L.R.4th 401, Validity, Construction, And Application Of

State Hazardous Waste Regulations, by William B. Johnson,
Thomson West, 1991.

[Superseded in part by 25 A.L.R.7th Art. 3, Private Cause of

Action Under State Hazardous Waste Regulations, by George L.
Blum, Thomson West, 2017.]

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-48

 Selected ALR Annotations [Cont’d]

Invasion of • 190 A.L.R. Fed. 385, Validity, Construction, and Application of

privacy Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.A. §§
1801 et seq,) Authorizing Electronic Surveillance of Foreign
Powers and Their Agents, by John J. Dvorske, Thomson West,
2003.

Job • 38 A.L.R. Fed. 27, Appropriateness of particular forms of

discrimination nonmonetary affirmative relief under § 706(g) of Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(g), as against employers, by
Russell J. Davis, Thomson West, 1978.

Names • 68 A.L.R.3d 1168, Incorporation Of Company Under Particular

Name As Creating Exclusive Right To Such Name, by Wade R.
Habeeb, Thomson West, 1976.

Other states • 78 A.L.R. Fed. 831, Propriety Of Federal Court Injunction

and foreign Against Suit In Foreign Country, by Robin Cheryl Miller,
countries Thomson West, 1986.

• 42 A.L.R. Fed. 592, Propriety Of Injunction By Federal Court In

Civil Action Restraining Prosecution Of Later Civil Action In
Another Federal Court Where One Or More Parties Are, Same
Issues Are, Or Allegedly Are, Same, by Milton Roberts, Thomson
West, 1979.

• 54 A.L.R.2d 1240, Injunction Against Suit In Another State Or

Country For Divorce Or Separation, by E. H. Schopler, Thomson
West, 1957.

Parking on • 37 A.L.R.2d 944, Right to park vehicles on private way, by M. O.

private way Regensteiner, Thomson West, 1954.

Property, • 65 A.L.R.4th 603, Encroachment Of Trees, Shrubbery, Or Other

Encroachment Vegetation Across Boundary Line, by Robert Roy, Thomson
of West, 1988.

Publicity • 56 A.L.R.4th 1214, Validity And Construction Of State Court’s

(pending court Order Precluding Publicity Or Comment About Pending Civil Case
case) By Counsel, Parties Or Witnesses, by Lori J. Henkel, Thomson
West, 1987.

Schools • 50 A.L.R.3d 340, Validity And Construction Of Statute Or

Ordinance Forbidding Unauthorized Persons To Enter Upon Or
Remain In School Building Or Premises, by Jeffrey F. Ghent,
Thomson West, 1973.

Trespass • 60 A.L.R.2d 310, Injunction Against Repeated Or Continuing

Trespass On Real Property, by H. H. Henry, Thomson West,
1958.

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-49

 Selected ALR Annotations [Cont’d]

UCC • 25 A.L.R.4th 239, What constitutes fraud or forgery justifying

refusal to honor, or injunction against honoring, letter of credit
under UCC § 5-114(1)(2), by Michael A. DiSabatino, Thomson
West, 1983.

Water • 42 A.L.R.3d 426, Property Of Injunctive Relief Against Diversion

Of Water By Municipal Corporation Or Public Utility, by Wade R.
Habeeb, Thomson West, 1972.

Zoning • 73 A.L.R.4th 870, Laches As Defense By Governmental Entity To

Enjoin Zoning Violation, by Michael J. Yaworsky, Thomson West,
1989.

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-50

Figure 4: Injunction against interference with flow of surface waters
2 Conn. Practice Book (1997), Form 104.6

COMPLAINT

1. The plaintiff is the owner of a certain piece or parcel of land, with the
appurtenances thereto, situated in the city of , and bounded and described as
follows: (here insert description). On the premises he has a large garage in which
he stores and repairs automobiles.
2. The defendants are the owners of a contiguous piece of land which abuts the
above mentioned property of the plaintiff on the south, which premises are described
as follows: (here insert description).
3. Abutting the above described premises of both parties to the east is and for a
long time has been a railroad right of way on which are constructed tracks upon an
embankment higher than the lands of the parties.
4. The natural slope of land across the premises of both parties is from the
northwest to the southeast.
5. Prior to the construction of the railroad a small stream or water-course ran
across the land of the plaintiff and away to the east over the land now occupied by
the railroad but by reason of the building of the embankment it was deflected to the
west and has ever since run in a definitely defined and marked course across the
land of the defendant.
6. The change was made more than fifteen years before the occurrences
hereafter stated and ever since the plaintiff has enjoyed and asserted the right to
have the water in this watercourse pass off over the defendant's land, and the use of
the watercourse over the defendant's land for that purpose has been open,
continuous, uninterrupted, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the defendant
and his predecessors in title and adversely to him and them.
7. Beginning on or about (date) the defendant has filled in the land on his
premises for the entire distance it abuts upon the land of the plain-tiff until it is
higher than the land of the plaintiff, and has filled in the channel of the watercourse
and wholly obstructed it.
8. As a further result of the filling in of his premises by the defend-ant, he has
caused the surface water which falls upon it, instead of flowing away to the south as
it normally would, to flow northerly upon the land of the plaintiff, and thereby has
greatly increased the volume of surface water coming upon the plaintiff's premises,

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-51

and has so filled his land as to cause the surface water coming upon the plaintiff's
premises to flow thereon not in a natural diffused manner but in several well defined
channels, which bring upon the plaintiff's premises dirt and silt and wash channels
through it.

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-52

Figure 5: Injunction to Restrain Violation of Zoning Ordinance
2 Conn. Practice Book (1997), Form 104.5

COMPLAINT

1. The plaintiff is and for a long time has been the owner in fee simple of

a certain tract of land with a dwelling house thereon located on (state location)

which premises he has occupied and is now occupying as a private dwelling for

himself and his family.

2. The defendant (name of owner), is the owner of certain premises

situated on (state location) directly opposite the premises of the plaintiff. The

defendant (name of lessee), has a leasehold interest in the premises and the

defendant (name of mortgagee) has a mortgage thereon..

3. On (date), the town of duly and lawfully adopted various building and

zone regulations which, among other things, restrict the carrying on of trade,

industry or business in certain areas in said town, and under these regulations the

area of that part of the town in which the premises of the plaintiff and of the

defendants are situated is restricted solely to the erection and use of buildings for

residential purposes.

4. After the adoption of the regulations the defendant owner caused to be

erected and constructed on his premises a building designed solely for business

purposes, namely a store, and has leased the same to the defendant lessee, who

has occupied and is now occupying the same in carrying on the business of selling

meats and groceries.

5. Shortly after the defendant owner began to erect the building the

plaintiff notified him that its construction was in violation of the building and zone

regulations, and unless it desisted, the plaintiff would seek proper legal redress.

6. Thereafter the plaintiff, upon a number of occasions, requested the

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-53

zoning commission of the town, whose duty it is to enforce the regulations, to take

steps to prevent the unlawful construction and use of the building, and has awaited

action by it, but the commission has neglected and refused to take any action or

proceedings whatsoever in the matter.

7. By reason of the use of the defendant's premises as alleged, the street

in front of plaintiff's property is constantly throughout the daytime greatly

congested by automobiles and trucks; automobiles park on the street in front of

plaintiff's property and at times on his sidewalk and lawn, driving into the fence in

front of his property and damaging the same; frequently in the night or very early

morning trucks going to the place of business of the defendant lessee and

unloading their goods make such a noise as to disturb the sleep, peace, quiet and

comfort of the plaintiff. These conditions constitute a nuisance to the plaintiff; the

value of his premises as a dwelling place is greatly impaired, and if they continue

will be destroyed; and the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable injury for which he has

no adequate remedy at law.

The plaintiff claims:

1. An injunction restraining the defendants and each of them from using

or permitting to be used for business purposes the land and buildings owned by

the defendant owner as above set forth.

2. Damages.

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-54

 Section 5: Appeal of Injunction
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library

SCOPE: • Bibliographic resources relating to the appeal of temporary

and permanent injunctions.

DEFINITIONS: • “[T]he governing principles for our standard of review as it

pertains to a trial court’s discretion to grant or deny a
request for an injunction [are]: A party seeking injunctive
relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable
harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law….A prayer for
injunctive relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the
court and the court’s ruling can be reviewed only for the
purpose of determining whether the decision was based on
an erroneous statement of law or an abuse of
discretion….Walton v. New Hartford, 223 Conn. 155, 612
A.2d 1153 (1992). Therefore, unless the trial court abused
its discretion, or failed to exercise its discretion; Wehrhane
v. Peyton, 134 Conn. 486, 498, 58 A.2d 698 (1948); the
trial court’s decision must stand….Advest, Inc. v. Wachtel,
235 Conn. 559, 562-63, 668 A.2d 367 (1995).” (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v.
Orange, supra, 256 Conn. 566.” Pequonnock Yacht Club,
Inc. v. Bridgeport, 259 Conn. 592, 598, 790 A.2d 1178
(2002).

• Appeal when judgment rendered averse to

continuance of temporary injunction: “When a
temporary injunction has been granted and upon final
hearing judgment has been rendered adverse to its
continuance, either party may apply to the court rendering
the judgment, representing that he intends to appeal the
case to the court having jurisdiction and praying that the
temporary injunction may be continued until the final
decision therein. Unless the court is of the opinion that
great and irreparable injury will be done by the further
continuance of the injunction, or that the application was
made only for delay and not in good faith, the court shall
continue the injunction until a final decision is rendered in
the court having jurisdiction.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-476
(2021).

• Appeal of permanent injunction: “When judgment has

been rendered for a permanent injunction ordering either
party to perform any act, the court, upon an application
similar to that mentioned in section 52-476, shall stay the
operation of such injunction until a final decision in the
court having jurisdiction, unless the court is of the opinion
that great and irreparable injury will be done by such stay
or that such application was made only for delay and not in
good faith.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-477 (2021).

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-55

 • Removal of stay or dissolution of injunction during
appeal: “the court in which such case is pending may, if in
its opinion the cause of justice so requires, dissolve such
temporary injunction or remove the stay of such permanent
injunction while such case is so pending in the supreme
court.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-478 (2021).

STATUTES: • Conn. Gen. Stat. (2021)

Chapter 916. Injunctions
You can visit your
local law library or
§52-476. Continuance pending appeal
search the most §52-477. Permanent injunction; stay pending appeal
recent statutes and §52-478. Removal of stay or dissolution of injunction
public acts on the
Connecticut General
Assembly website to
confirm that you are
using the most up-
to-date statutes.

You can visit

COURT your
RULES: • Conn. Practice Book (2022)
local law library or
search the most § 61-11. Stay of Execution in Noncriminal Cases
Amendments
recent statutesto the
and § 61-12. Discretionary Stays
Practice
public Book
acts (Court
on the
Rules) are published
Connecticut General
Assembly website to
in the Connecticut
confirm that you
Law Journal andare
using
posted the most up-to-
online.
date statutes.

Amendments to the
FORMS: • 2 Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms Appeal and Error,
Practice Book (Court
Rules) are published Thomson West, 2013 (Also available on Westlaw).
in the Connecticut § 211. Judgment dissolving injunction
Law Journal and § 212. Judgment dissolving injunction—Conditional if
posted online.
judgment affirmed
§ 213. Judgment modifying injunction
§ 214. Judgment modifying injunction—Conditional if
judgment affirmed

• 14A Am Jur Pleading & Practice Forms Injunctions, Thomson

West, 2013 (Also available on Westlaw).
§ 54. Affidavit- in support of motion for preliminary
injunction- appeal pending
§ 108 Notice of motion- for stay of injunction pending
appeal
§ 114. Affidavit- stay of injunction pending appeal
§ 122. Order- stay of injunction pending appeal

CASES: Prohibitory v. Mandatory Injunctions

• Brennan v. Brennan Associates, 316 Conn. 677, 113 A.3d

957 (2015). “In Tomasso Bros., Inc. v. October Twenty-
Four, Inc., 230 Conn. 641, 652-54, 646 A.2d 133 (1994),
this court explored what types of injunctions are
automatically stayed by Practice Book (1994) § 4046, the
predecessor to and functional equivalent of Practice Book §
61-11. This court traced the history of the automatic stay

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-56

 provision, noting that, generally, prohibitory injunctions,
Once you have
identified useful which restrain a party from commission of an act, were not
cases, it is important automatically stayed pending appeal, while mandatory
to update the cases injunctions, which command a party to perform an act,
before you rely on
were. ’The primary purpose of these rules was to preserve
them. Updating case
law means checking the status quo during the pendency of the appeal…Under
to see if the cases this view, therefore, in the case of [not automatically
are still good law. staying] a prohibitory injunction, the enjoined party was
You can contact your
prevented from doing irreparable harm to the party that
local law librarian to
learn about the tools successfully sought the injunction; in the case of
available to you to [automatically staying] a mandatory injunction, the
update cases. enjoined party was not required to assume a burden until
the equities had been conclusively established.’ At 653, 646
A.2d 133.” (p. 760)
Once you have
identified useful
cases, it is important “Pursuant to Tomasso Bros., Inc., the injunctive aspect of
to update the cases the judgment of dissociation in the present case—enjoining
before you rely on
them. Updating case by prohibition, the plaintiff from continuing to be a
law means checking partner—was not automatically stayed pending appeal
to see if the cases are notwithstanding the provisions of Practice Book § 61-11.”
still good law. You can
contact your local law [emphasis added in the original] (p. 761)
librarian to learn
about the tools Temporary Injunctions
available to you to
update cases.
• Hammonasset Holdings, LLC v. Drake Petroleum Co.,
Superior Court, Judicial District of Middletown, Docket No.
MMXCV106003036 (May 8, 2012, Wiese, J.) (54 Conn. L.
Rptr. 27, 29) (2012 WL 2044586) (2012 Conn. Super.
LEXIS 1248). “The court will next address whether Drake is
entitled to a stay [of temporary injunction pending an
appeal] pursuant to Practice Book § 61.12. In support of
this alternative argument, Drake argues that the overall
balance of equities favors the issuance of a stay.
Specifically, it contends that, under the four-part test
governing the balance of equities for a discretionary stay
set forth in Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals &
Health Care, 196 Conn. 451 (1985), (1) Drake is likely to
succeed on the merits of its appeal, (2) Drake will suffer
irreparable harm without the stay, (3) a stay will not harm
the plaintiffs, and (4) a stay will best serve the public
interest.”

• Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Blumenthal, 281

Conn. 805, 811, 917 A.2d 951 (2007). “…the purpose of a
temporary injunction is to ‘[maintain] the status quo while
the rights of the parties are being determined.’ Ulichny v.
Bridgeport, 230 Conn. 140, 147, 644 A.2d 347 (1994).
Similarly, the denial of a temporary injunction is a
determination that the status quo need not be maintained
while the court determines the rights of the parties. By
contrast, ‘a permanent injunction effects a final
determination of [those] rights.’ Id. Under this well
established law, therefore, the denial by the court of the

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-57

 plaintiff’s application for a temporary injunction was merely
Once you have
identified useful
an interlocutory order and is not a final judgment for
cases, it is important purposes of appeal.”
to update the cases
before you rely on • Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank v. Martin Trust,
them. Updating case
law means checking
25 Conn. App. 28, 28-30, n. 4, 592 A. 2d 417 (1991). “The
to see if the cases issue here is whether a prejudgment remedy (PJR) may be
are still good law. extended to include a temporary injunction in order to
You can contact your permit an appeal of the temporary injunction under General
local law librarian to
learn about the tools
Statutes § 52-278l. We hold that it cannot.” (p. 28-29)
available to you to
update cases. “Temporary injunctions generally are not appealable
because they are interlocutory in nature, but an exception
exists if the temporary injunction meets the requirements of
a final judgment. See Doublewal Corporation v. Toffolon,
195 Conn. 384, 389-90, 488 A. 2d 444 (1985).” (p. 29-30)

“[fn4] Immediate review of temporary injunctions is also

authorized for appeals arising out of labor disputes; General
Statutes § 31-118; French v. Amalgamated Local Union
376, 203 Conn. 624, 628 526 A. 2d 861 (1987); or for
appeals involving matters of substantial public interest.
Laurel Park, Inc. v. Pac, 194 Conn. 677, 678 n.1, 485 A. 2d
1272 (1984).” (p. 30, n.4)

• H.O. Canfield Co. v. United Construction Workers, 134

Conn. 623, 626, 60 A.2d 176 (1948). “Section 5903 is
based upon the possibility that the trial court acted
erroneously in dissolving or modifying the temporary
injunction in the trial on the merits. The purpose of the
section is to preserve the status quo until the plaintiff’s
rights may ultimately be determined upon the appeal.”
[Section 5903 is now Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-476 (2021).]

Permanent Injunctions

• Dattco, Inc. v. Commissioner of Transportation, 324 Conn.

39, 55-56, 151 A.3d 823 (2016). “We therefore conclude
that the trial court improperly granted the commissioner’s
motion for summary judgment and that it improperly
denied the plaintiffs’ motion. This conclusion requires us to
consider the appropriate remedy. In their complaint, the
plaintiffs sought an injunction from the trial court
preventing the commissioner from (1) condemning the
certificates, and (2) operating any buses over the plaintiffs’
designated routes. In their arguments to this court, the
plaintiffs have argued that such relief is proper and
necessary to protect their rights in the certificates.
Nevertheless, the issue of whether an injunction is
necessary in addition to a judgment, and the precise
parameters of any injunction, have not been considered by
the trial court. In addition, the plaintiffs’ request for an
injunction barring the commissioner form operating any

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-58

Once you have buses over any of their designated routes may impact the
identified useful separate, pending litigation concerning the extent of the
cases, it is important plaintiffs’ operating rights under their certificates, including
to update the cases
whether the plaintiffs’ rights over these routes are
before you rely on
them. Updating case exclusive. That dispute is not before us in the present
law means checking appeal. Accordingly, we conclude that a decision of whether
to see if the cases any injunctive relief is necessary and the parameters of any
are still good law.
injunctive relief, if granted, is a decision that must be made
You can contact your
local law librarian to in the first instance by the trial court on remand.”
learn about the tools
available to you to • Hunter Ridge, LLC, v. Planning and Zoning Commission of
update cases.
the Town of Newtown, 318 Conn. 431, 122 A.3d 533
(2016). “The primary Issue in these appeals involves
whether the act [The Environmental Protection Act of 1971]
empowers a trial court to enter an injunction in an
administrative appeal of a zoning decision brought pursuant
to General Statutes § 8-8, a power that the trial court
otherwise would not have available to it…The act does not
permit the intervenor to expand the remedies allowed in the
underlying proceeding; it allows the intervenor to raise only
those claims for relief otherwise permitted in the existing
proceeding.” (p. 436)

“In a zoning appeal, the trial court may only ‘reverse or

affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify or revise the
decision appealed from.’…It has no authority to enter
injunctive relief.” (p. 439)

• City of Stamford v. Ten Rugby Street, LLC, 164 Conn. App.

49, 81, 137 A.3d 781 (2016). “…The injunction concludes
with the broad statement that the court is granting ‘a
permanent injunction from continuing violations of zoning
regulations.’”

• Sullivan v. McDonald, 281 Conn. 122, 913 A.2d 403 (2007).

“The Co-Chairs did not establish a specific date for a
hearing, in part, because an injunction remains in place at
this time prohibiting them from compelling Justice Sullivan’s
attendance.” (p. 126)

“Accordingly, pursuant to this court’s supervisory authority;

Practice Book § 60-2; the orders of the trial court are
hereby stayed pending further order of this court.” (p. 128)

WEST KEY • Appeal and Error

NUMBERS: # 71(3) Decisions reviewable—Finality of
determination—Interlocutory and intermediate
decisions—Injunction
# 100 Decisions reviewable—Nature, scope, and effect
of decision—Injunction
# 447 Effect of transfer of cause or proceedings
therefor—Power and proceedings of lower
court—Provisional remedies—Injunction

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-59

 # 458(3) Supersedeas or stay of proceedings—Right to
supersedeas or stay in general—Injunction or
appointment and proceedings of receiver
# 488 Supersedeas or stay of proceedings—Scope and
effect as stay—Injunction
# 3040 Review—Considerations preliminary to
conducting review—Necessity of determination
by reviewing court—Particular questions and
issues—Injunctive relief
# 3661 Review—Scope and extent of review—Injunctive
relief
# 3662 Review—Scope and extent of review—Injunctive
relief—Granting or refusing
#3663 Review—Scope and extent of review—Injunctive
relief—Continuing, vacating, or dissolving
#3664 Review—Scope and extent of review—Injunctive
relief—Preliminary injunction; temporary
restraining order
#3970 Review—Presumptions and burdens on review—
Particular matters and rulings—Injunctive relief
#4553 Harmless and reversible error—Particular
errors—Remedial matters—Injunctive relief

ENCYCLOPEDIAS: • 42 Am Jur 2d Injunctions, Thomson West, 2020 (Also

available on Westlaw).
Encyclopedias and VIII. Appellate Review
ALRs are available in
print at some law A. In general
library locations and B. Particular injunctions
accessible online at C. Scope and extent of review
all law library
locations.

TEXTS & • Connecticut Practice Series, Rules of Appellate Procedure,

TREATISES: by Wesley W. Horton and Kenneth J. Bartschi, 2021-2022
ed., Thomson West (also available on Westlaw).
Each of our law § 61-11. Stay of execution in noncriminal cases. [See
libraries own the
Authors’ Comments]
Connecticut treatises
cited. You can § 61-12. Discretionary Stays. [See Authors’ Comments]
contact us or visit
our catalog to • 2 Stephenson’s Connecticut Civil Procedure, 3rd ed., by
determine which of
Renee Bevacqua Bollier et al., Atlantic Law Book Co., 2002,
our law libraries own
the other treatises with 2003 supplement.
cited or to search for Chapter 19. Extraordinary procedures,
more treatises. Sec. 227. Stay or continuance of injunction pending
appeal
References to online
databases refer to
in-library use of • 2 Dupont on Connecticut Civil Practice, by Ralph Dupont,
these databases. 2021-2022 ed., LexisNexis.
Remote access is not
§ 23-50.26. Continuance pending appeal
available.
§ 23-50.27. Permanent injunction; Stay pending appeal
§ 23-50.28. Removal of stay or dissolution of injunction

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-60

• 2 Connecticut Civil Procedure, 2nd ed., by Edward L.
Stephenson et al., Atlantic Law Book Company, 1971, with
1981 supplement.
§ 269. Status of temporary injunction pending appeal
a. Permanent injunction denied
b. Permanent prohibitory injunction granted
c. Permanent mandatory injunction granted
d. Removal of stay or dissolution of injunction

Injunctions and Restraining Orders-61