Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 10 — EDUCATION AND CULTURE · Chapter 170 — Boards of Education
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-234 (2026)

Expulsion of pupils

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 10-234 is repealed.

(1949, S. 960d; 1957, P.A. 92; P.A. 75-609, S. 6.)

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

Secs. 10-234a to 10-234z. Reserved for future use.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1969–2003 · leading case: Mitchell v. King, 363 A.2d 68 (Conn. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mitchell v. King, 363 A.2d 68 (Conn. 1975). · cites it 12× “The defendants have assigned as error the court’s award of damages, and both parties have briefed the issue of the defendants’'immunity from liability. That issue will be treated as presented and briefed by the parties.”
Monroe v. Bd. of Educ., 65 F.R.D. 641 (D. Conn. 1975). · cites it 13× “The plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment on the claim that Connecticut’s expulsion statute, Conn. Gen.Stat.Ann. § 10-234 (1958), is unconstitutional on its face.”
Packer v. Bd. of Educ., 717 A.2d 117 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× “to 1975) §10-234, the then current school expulsion statute, was void for vagueness; see Mitchell v.”
DeJesus v. Penberthy, 344 F. Supp. 70 (D. Conn. 1972). · cites it 6× “Whether or not there is a due process violation presented, the Board may well decide in the future that at least the appearance of impartiality, if not its required substance, is enhanced by making the ultimate decision with only Board members present, or at least excusing those…”
Crossen v. Fatsi, 309 F. Supp. 114 (D. Conn. 1970). · cites it 2× “Conn.Gen.Stat. § 10-234. 4 . 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3) and 1343(4) : (3) “To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of…”
Rudy's Limousine Serv., Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 826 A.2d 1161 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). “to 1975) § 10-234 had unconstitutionally authorized the defendant, a board of education, to expel disruptive students.”
Yoo v. Moynihan, 262 A.2d 814 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1969). · cites it 2× “” The evidence does not disclose that any attempt was made to proceed under § 10-234. What was done here comes within § 10-233, or at least attempts to; that statute provides for suspension by the administrative staff for violation of regulations — in this case the dress code…”
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.