Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 10 — EDUCATION AND CULTURE · Chapter 163 — State Board of Education. Department of Education
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-3 (2026)

Prosecuting agents to enforce school laws

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 10-3 is repealed.

(1949 Rev., S. 1334; 1961, P.A. 517, S. 92; February, 1965, P.A. 112, S. 1.)

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Spears v. Garcia, 785 A.2d 1181 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spears v. Garcia, 785 A.2d 1181 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 9× “The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants for injuries that Tonisha Spears sustained on June 28,1994.”
Gold v. Rowland, 994 A.2d 106 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 6× “the failure to comply with the directive of Practice Book § 10-3[a] will not bar recovery" [internal quotation marks omitted]); see also Moore v.”
Caruso v. City of Bridgeport, 941 A.2d 266 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 5× “In support of their claim, the defendants rely on Practice Book § 10-3 (a), which provides: “When any claim *628 made in a complaint, cross complaint, special defense, or other pleading is grounded on a statute, the statute shall be specifically identified by its number.” This…”
Florian v. Lenge, 880 A.2d 985 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 4× “We disagree with each of those arguments and conclude that the court properly applied § 42a-3-104.”
Skakel v. Benedict, 738 A.2d 170 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 8× “We do not agree and conclude that, after a careful examination of the record in light of relevant precedent, the plaintiffs noncompliance with Practice Book § 10-3 (a) does not preclude us from reviewing this claim in the context of deciding his appeal from the trial court’s…”
Spears v. Garcia, 818 A.2d 37 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 2× “The defendants also claimed at oral argument [on their motion] that pursuant to Practice Book § 10-3 (a), ‘[w]hen any claim made in a complaint .”
Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Ass'n of Stratford, Inc., 858 A.2d 860 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 3× “The plaintiff argues that Practice Book § 10-3 (a) is directory rather than mandatory and that, because the defendants were apprised of his reliance on the act at various points in the litigation, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to plead the statute.”
Rocco v. Garrison, 848 A.2d 352 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “Practice Book § 10-3 (a) provides: “When any claim made in a complaint, cross complaint, special defense, or other pleading is grounded on a statute, the statute shall be specifically identified by its number.”
Mazurek v. Great Am. Ins., 930 A.2d 682 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff seems to suggest, however, that the trial court was required to construe his negligence and recklessness claims as a product liability claim if it determined that they fell within the product liability act.”
Ramondetta v. Amenta, 903 A.2d 232 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “We conclude that the defendant failed to plead the defense of the statute of limitations .”
Michalski v. Hinz, 918 A.2d 964 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “In addition, although Practice Book § 10-3 (a) requires in relevant part that “[w]hen any claim made in a complaint .”
Burton v. City of Stamford, 971 A.2d 739 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 3× “Practice Book § 10-3; see also Avon Meadow Condominium Assn.”
Show all 78 citing cases →
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-3(a): 3 cases
Gold v. Rowland, 994 A.2d 106 (Conn. 2010). “the failure to comply with the directive of Practice Book § 10-3[a] will not bar recovery" [internal quotation marks omitted]); see also Moore v.”
Brewster Park, LLC v. Berger, 14 A.3d 334 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
300 State, LLC v. Hanafin, 59 A.3d 287 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-3(b): 1 case
Am. Express Bank, FSB v. Rutkowski, 166 A.3d 908 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
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.