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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-3 (2026)

Validity of separate provisions of acts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If any provision of any act passed by the General Assembly or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of such act.

(1949 Rev., S. 8893.)

If statute is partially invalid, valid part may stand if it and the invalid part are not so mutually connected and dependent as to indicate legislative intent that they are inseparable. 146 C. 78. To overcome presumption of separability it must be shown the portion declared invalid is so mutually connected and dependent on remainder as to indicate an intent they should stand or fall together, and to warrant belief the legislature would not have adopted remainder independently of invalid portion; similarly when application to distinct classes of persons is at issue. 171 C. 141. Cited. 191 C. 336; 199 C. 693; 201 C. 435; 215 C. 675.

Cited. 32 CA 656; judgment reversed in part, see 232 C. 345.

Cited. 30 CS 87.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1926–2025 · leading case: State v. Bell, 33 A.3d 167 (Conn. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bell, 33 A.3d 167 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 7× “[In enacting] General Statutes § 1-3 11 the legislature has shown its intention that there is to be a presumption of separability of the provisions and of the applications of statutes.”
Caldor, Inc. v. Thornton, 464 A.2d 785 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 1-3; see State v. Menillo, 171 Conn.”
Payne v. Fairfield Hills Hosp., 578 A.2d 1025 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 4× “The legislature has expressed its intention, by General Statutes § 1-3, 6 that courts should presume the sever-ability of the provisions and the applications of statutes.”
Adams v. Rubinow, 251 A.2d 49 (Conn. 1968). · cites it 4× “Thus, it would not appear that this was such a necessary portion of the Act that its deletion, as unconstitutional, to the extent hereinbefore determined, would render the entire Act unconstitutional, even in the absence of a severability provision, under General Statutes § 1-3…”
State v. Bell, 931 A.2d 198 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “By General Statutes § 1-3 the legislature has shown its intention that there is to be a presumption of separability of the provisions and of the applications of statutes.”
State v. Watson, 345 A.2d 532 (Conn. 1973). · cites it 4× “The court was in error in charging on the invalid provision of the statute and in instructing the jury that the defendants could be found guilty of the statute on proof of their presence in the Smith vehicle.”
State v. Campbell, 180 A.3d 882 (Conn. 2018). “The trial court's initial ruling aligns with § 1-3 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, which provides that, "[w]hen the admissibility of evidence depends upon connecting facts, the court may admit the evidence upon proof of the connecting facts or subject to later proof of…”
State v. Bonds, 158 A.3d 826 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 1-3 (a) ("preliminary questions concerning .”
State v. Golino, 518 A.2d 57 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 4× “That statute provides that “[i]f any provision of any act passed by the general assembly or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of such act.”
State v. Merriam, 835 A.2d 895 (Conn. 2003). “§ 1-3 (a) (“[preliminary questions concerning .”
State v. Carpenter, 882 A.2d 604 (Conn. 2005). “” Section 1-3 (a) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides: “Preliminary questions concerning the qualification and competence of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court.”
In Re the Investigation of the Death of Miller, 584 S.E.2d 772 (N.C. 2003). “C.G.S. § 1-3 (2001), and we note that while this action was not commenced in strict accord with the usual process as set forth in the North Carolina General Statutes, N.”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-3(a) — 1 case
State v. Smith, 181 A.3d 118 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-3(b) — 1 case
State v. Walker, 183 A.3d 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
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.