2020 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 52 - Civil Actions
Chapter 918 - Mandamus, Ne Exeat, Prohibition and Quo Warranto
Section 52-491 - Complaint in the nature of quo warranto.
When any person or corporation usurps the exercise of any office, franchise or jurisdiction, the Superior Court may proceed, on a complaint in the nature of a quo warranto, to punish such person or corporation for such usurpation, according to the course of the common law and may proceed therein and render judgment according to the course of the common law.
(1949 Rev., S. 8227; P.A. 76-100, S. 1.)
History: P.A. 76-100 allowed court to proceed upon a complaint rather than “by information” and deleted provision for filing of information in county where cause of action arises “at the relation of any person desiring to prosecute the same, against any person usurping any corporate franchise or office”.
See Sec. 9-328 re contests and complaints in election of municipal officers and nomination of justices of the peace.
Does not lie in state court to test right of one claiming an office in a corporation of the U.S. 35 C. 379. Will not be tried when it is too late to make the judgment of any avail. 5 D. 335. Cited. 18 C. 54; 16 C. 179. Fine and costs, when refused. 10 C. 167. Will not lie to try title to an office not a legally authorized public office. 42 C. 86; 82 C. 398. Legal existence of school district cannot be tried by. 42 C. 90. Inspector appointed by board of street commissioners under charter is subject to quo warranto. 46 C. 480. The state must be a party to every proceeding by quo warranto; but may voluntarily part with such right. 51 C. 127. Title to office can be tried only on writ of quo warranto. 55 C. 121; 61 C. 376. Election of Governor; jurisdiction of Superior Court. Id. In an information in the nature of quo warranto, the relator is the substantial complainant and conducts the cause. 63 C. 181. Is a means to oust an illegal incumbent from an office, not to induct a legal one into it. 66 C. 300; 87 C. 541; 102 C. 595. Proper course of procedure. 69 C. 227, 228. Burden upon respondent to show a complete title to the office in dispute. 71 C. 110; Id., 545; 87 C. 541; 82 C. 122. Only lies in case of public office; not in that of clerk of department appointed under city ordinance. 83 C. 143. Distinguished from mandamus as a means to enforce a right to office. Id., 554. “Pretended town” as defendant. 77 C. 266. Some offices too minor in character to be object of writ. 94 C. 416. May be used to test constitutionality of statute creating taxing district; but commissioners of district should not be made parties defendant. 104 C. 195. In election contests, proper remedy is procedure authorized by Sec. 9-328 rather than this section. 145 C. 648. Where relator is private party claiming title to public office, trial court does not have discretionary authority to deny remedy of ouster when defendant's title is found defective. 174 C. 36. Cited. 182 C. 253; 185 C. 445; 219 C. 432. Plaintiff's taxpayer status constitutes justiciable interest sufficient to establish standing in quo warranto action; trial court properly granted writ of quo warranto and removed wetlands compliance officer whose appointment violated town charter. 306 C. 1. A quo warranto action may not be used to avoid the administrative process by mounting a collateral attack on an administrative agency's decision to issue a license, certification or waiver that renders a public officer qualified to hold his or her position. 310 C. 576.
Cited. 10 CA 209; 15 CA 323; 21 CA 351; 27 CA 421. Does not expressly require plaintiff in quo warranto action to name and serve person allegedly usurping contested office; plaintiff's failure to name such persons therefore does not require dismissal. 76 CA 24.
In a quo warranto proceeding questioning the appointment of defendant to an office, the burden of proof is upon defendant to establish his legal right to the office. 21 CS 294. Cited. 30 CS 74. Quo warranto proceeding challenging residency requirement of alderman. Id., 82.
