Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 01 — PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION · Chapter 3 — Public Records: General Provisions
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-13 (2025)

Making of reproductions

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any original books, records, papers or documents may be delivered by any recording agency to any department of the state, or to any political subdivision of the state, for the purpose of having such reproductions made, and, upon such reproduction, such original books, records, papers or documents shall be returned promptly to such delivering agency. Whenever provision is made by statute for the return of any original books, records, papers or documents to any person, such return shall be delayed until after the delivery back to such recording agency of the reproduced image or images properly fixed. Any reproduced image or images may be released for fixation to any processor approved by the Public Records Administrator.

(1949 Rev., S. 8885.)

See Sec. 11-8(b) re appointment of Public Records Administrator.

Cited. 206 C. 449.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1964–2000 · leading case: State v. Ross, 646 A.2d 1318 (Conn. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ross, 646 A.2d 1318 (Conn. 1994). “1, §§ 1-13, 156, pp. 119-21, 158. It is ironic that while the majority upholds the death penalty, it would surely strike down the alternative punishment available at the time our constitution was adopted that Swift believed was less severe than the “dreadful punishment of…”
Carofano v. City of Bridgeport, 495 A.2d 1011 (Conn. 1985). “On February 20,1933, the defendant city adopted an ordinance, § 1-13, requiring all of its officers and employees to reside in Bridgeport.”
Lux v. Env't Warranty, Inc., 755 A.2d 936 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). “1993) § 1-13, pp. 31-33. The court did not decide that issue, and we need not address it.”
R & H Dev. Co. v. Tanker, 203 A.2d 766 (Conn. App. Ct. 1964). “’ ” Gilmore & Black, Admiralty § 1-13, p. 33; see Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.