Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 01 — PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION · Chapter 1 — Construction of Statutes
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-2 (2026)

Legal notices

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Each provision of the general statutes, the special acts or the charter of any town, city or borough which requires the insertion of an advertisement of a legal notice in a daily newspaper shall be construed to permit such advertisement to be inserted in a weekly newspaper; but this section shall not be construed to reduce or otherwise affect the time required by law for giving such notice. Whenever notice of any action or other proceeding is required to be given by publication in a newspaper, either by statute or order of court, the newspaper selected for that purpose, unless otherwise expressly prescribed, shall be one having a substantial circulation in the town in which at least one of the parties, for whose benefit such notice is given, resides.

(1949 Rev., S. 8890, 8892; P.A. 79-375.)

History: P.A. 79-375 rephrased provisions but made no substantive changes.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1967–2024 · leading case: State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 92× “For example, the commentary to § 1-2 provides that "[b]ecause the [c]ode was intended to maintain the status quo, i.”
State v. Sawyer, 904 A.2d 101 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 8× “3 In my *364 view, for the reasons that follow, the answer to this question is clear and straightforward and we should not suggest otherwise to the trial judges who are charged with the daily application of the Code. The Code governs where it speaks, and the courts’ common-law…”
Rose v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 602 A.2d 1019 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 9× “The Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal of the FOIC’s order for want of subject matter jurisdiction after concluding that the plaintiffs were not “parties aggrieved” by a decision of the FOIC within the meaning of General Statutes § 1-2 li (d) 3 and therefore lacked…”
Bd. of Educ. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 545 A.2d 1064 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 4× “Since General Statutes § 1-2 li (a) states that failure to comply with a request within four business days is deemed a denial, the board’s denial under the statute occurred on Monday, July 21, 1986.”
State v. Whitford, 799 A.2d 1034 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 3× “Indeed, § 1-2 (a) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence expressly states that one of the purposes behind its compilation was “to adopt Connecticut case law regarding rules of evidence as rules of court .”
Zoning Bd. of Appeals v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 503 A.2d 1161 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 4× “” The ZBA appealed this decision to the Superior Court which, in reversing the FOIC, concluded that the ZBA was an aggrieved party within the meaning of General Statutes § 1-2 li (d) and that the conversations between the ZBA and its counsel in executive session were…”
9 Pettipaug, LLC v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 349 Conn. 268 (Conn. 2024). · cites it 4× “This is particularly so given the presence of General Statutes § 1-2, which is a provision of general applicability that provides: ‘‘Each provision of the gen- eral statutes, the special acts or the charter of any town, city or borough which requires the insertion of an…”
Skakel v. State, 991 A.2d 414 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 1-2 (a), commentary. Thus, even though the commentary to Conn.”
State v. Henry, 820 A.2d 1076 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “The court’s ruling with respect to waiver by misconduct regarding the defendant’s right to object to the victim’s recorded statement on the basis of hearsay falls squarely within § 1-2 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.”
Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 698 A.2d 803 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 1-2 li (d) 5 expressly autho *84 rizes the procedure followed by the trial court.”
Dom. Violence Servs. of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 704 A.2d 827 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff appealed to the trial court pursuant to General Statutes §§ 1-2 li (d) 4 and 4-183 5 claiming that the commission’s finding that the plaintiff was a public agency was incorrect as a matter of law and clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and…”
City of Hartford v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 518 A.2d 49 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 2× “86-408 (hereinafter No. 86-408), which repealed § l-21i (b).”
Show all 60 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-2(a) — 3 cases
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008). “For example, the commentary to § 1-2 provides that "[b]ecause the [c]ode was intended to maintain the status quo, i.”
Skakel v. State, 991 A.2d 414 (Conn. 2010). “§ 1-2 (a), commentary. Thus, even though the commentary to Conn.”
Travelers Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Christie, 916 A.2d 114 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-2(b) — 1 case
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008). “For example, the commentary to § 1-2 provides that "[b]ecause the [c]ode was intended to maintain the status quo, i.”
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.