Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 46a-58

Citation
§ 46a-58
Parent Document
Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2022-04-26

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text

2,200 chars
interest was adopted by American courts. . . . Gradu-
          ally, in suits between private parties, the necessity of
          an agreement faded. . . .
             ‘‘The agreement requirement assumed special force
          when applied to claims for interest against the United
          States. As sovereign, the United States, in the absence
          of its consent, is immune from suit. . . . This basic
          rule of sovereign immunity, in conjunction with the
          requirement of an agreement to pay interest, gave rise
          to the rule that interest cannot be recovered unless
          the award of interest was affirmatively and separately
          contemplated by Congress. . . . The purpose of the
          rule is to permit the [g]overnment to occupy an appar-
          ently favored position . . . by protecting it from claims
          for interest that would prevail against private parties.
          . . .
            ‘‘For well over [one] century, this [c]ourt, executive
          agencies, and Congress itself consistently have recog-
          nized that federal statutes cannot be read to permit
          interest to run on a recovery against the United States
          unless Congress affirmatively mandates that result. The
          no-interest rule is expressly described as early as
          1819 . . . .
                                        ***
            ‘‘[Accordingly,] [i]n analyzing whether Congress has
          waived the immunity of the United States, we must
          construe waivers strictly in favor of the sovereign . . .
          and not enlarge the waiver beyond what the language
          requires . . . . The no-interest rule provides an added
          gloss of strictness [on] these usual rules.
             ‘‘[T]here can be no consent by implication or by use
          of ambiguous language. Nor can an intent on the part
          of the framers of a statute or contract to permit the
          recovery of interest suffice whe[n] the intent is not
          translated into affirmative statutory or contractual
Page 62                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                April 26, 2022