Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-18 (2026)

Disposition of original documents

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The original records, papers or documents reproduced pursuant to this chapter may be disposed of in such manner as approved by (1) the head of the political subdivision in charge thereof, and (2) the Public Records Administrator. All other original records, papers or documents so reproduced may be disposed of at the option of the keeper thereof.

(1949 Rev., S. 8889; 1955, S. 3357d; 1963, P.A. 152, S. 2; P.A. 76-18; 76-126; P.A. 12-66, S. 18.)

History: 1963 act added provision relative to probate judge; P.A. 76-18 changed “judge of probate” to “probate court administrator”; P.A. 76-126 deleted provision for approval by the attorney general; P.A. 12-66 substituted “reproduced pursuant to this chapter” for “so reproduced”, deleted reference to Probate Court Administrator in the case of probate records, inserted Subdiv. designators (1) and (2) and made a technical change.

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

Cited. 168 C. 435; 169 C. 186; 206 C. 449; 220 C. 225.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1975–2017 · leading case: DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven, 597 A.2d 807 (Conn. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven, 597 A.2d 807 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 2× “ng discriminatory standards in hiring employees of the parking authority; making “reckless and unauthenticated accusations and charges” about authority and city personnel “without confirming the truth of [his] charges, and when confronted with the falsity of said accusations and…”

Off. of Consum. Couns. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 662 A.2d 1251 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 2× “Thus, rather than add “state agency” to the statutory definition of “person” (General Statutes § 1-18 [a]), or change the statute to read, “[a]ny person or state agency aggrieved,” the legislature chose to replace “person” with “party.”

In re Jeffrey C., 802 A.2d 772 (Conn. 2002). “) In addition, this Court may refer the matter to the Office of the State’s Attorney for Nonsummary Criminal Contempt proceedings pursuant to [Practice Book § 1-18]. “5.) The respondents are further ordered to submit to a hair test within two weeks from the date hereof, said…”

Medeiros v. Medeiros, 167 A.3d 967 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). “See Practice Book § 1-18. An award of court costs plus reasonable attorney's fees also has been viewed in the context of an indirect civil contempt proceeding as a proper remedial form of compensation consisting of actual losses suffered by a plaintiff as the result of…”

Vasquez v. Superior Court, 925 A.2d 1112 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). “” Practice Book § 1-18 provides: “A criminal contempt deferred under Section 1-17 shall be prosecuted by means of an information.”

McDermott v. Comm'r of Child. & Youth Servs., 363 A.2d 103 (Conn. 1975). “73-620, §§ 1-18, effective June 11, 1973), the conduct of these proceedings was subject to the standards of fairness and impartiality articulated in the provisions of that statute, as well as the standards obtaining in the State Personnel Act and in our state and federal…”

State Bd. of Labor Relations v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 682 A.2d 1068 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). “The FOIC argues that grievance arbitration proceedings fall within the definition of a public meeting pursuant to § 1-18 a (b) because they are not “strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining .”

Lucarelli v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 43 A.3d 237 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). “6 General Statutes § 1-240 (a) provides: “Any person who wilfully, knowingly and with intent to do so, destroys, mutilates or otherwise disposes of any public record without the approval required under section 1-18 or unless pursuant to chapter 47 or 871, or who alters any…”

Gould v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n (Conn. 2014). “to 1991) § 1-18 (a). The only relevant differences between the two statutes are that the current statute was amended after this court’s decision in Election Review Committee of the Eighth Utilities District in order to add the phrase ‘‘or created by’’ and to further clarify that…”

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.