Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-39 (2026)

Temporary regional school study committee

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) Two or more towns may establish a regional school district in accordance with the provisions of this part.

(b) Two or more local or regional school districts may, by vote of their legislative bodies, join in the establishment of a temporary regional school study committee, hereafter referred to as the committee, to study the advisability of establishing a regional school district, and report to the respective towns in accordance with section 10-43. In performing its duties, such committee may employ an architect to assist in estimating the cost of providing school facilities, an appraiser to establish the value of assets of each participating school district and such other professional consultants or personnel as may be needed, provided the committee shall not incur obligations which exceed the moneys received pursuant to section 10-42. The committee shall continue until dissolved pursuant to section 10-43 but no longer than two years from the date of its organization unless the legislative bodies of the participating towns vote to extend the life of the committee for a period not to exceed two years.

(c) Two or more boards of education may conduct a preliminary study of the advisability of establishing a regional school district, and if their findings are affirmative, such boards of education, except as provided below, shall submit a written report to the chief executive officer in each town served by such boards. Within thirty days of the receipt of the report, such officer shall call a meeting of the legislative body of the town which shall consider the report and vote on the question of establishing a temporary regional school study committee pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. In the case of a regional board of education, such board shall call a meeting of the regional school district for such purposes.

(d) A regional school district may participate as a region in any study undertaken pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this section. In the case of a preliminary study, the regional board of education shall submit the written report to a regional school district meeting called to consider the report and vote on the question of joining in the establishment of a temporary regional school study committee pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. A regional school district may vote to appoint five members to a temporary regional school study committee at a regional school district meeting. Two of such members shall be members of the regional board of education. The towns which are members of such regional school district shall be “participating” towns for the purposes of notice, reports and referenda under sections 10-41 to 10-43, inclusive, and section 10-45. If a new regional school district is established by the referenda, the board of education of the regional school district which participated in the study shall be deemed a town board of education for purposes of section 10-46a.

(1951, 1953, 1955, S. 895d; 1969, P.A. 698, S. 1; P.A. 78-218, S. 30; P.A. 85-44, S. 1, 2; P.A. 91-303, S. 13, 22; P.A. 97-247, S. 9, 27.)

History: 1969 act made former provisions Subsec. (b), added Subsec. (a) re formation of regional school districts, included in Subsec. (b) provisions concerning employment of appraisers and other professional consultants and term of existence of committee and added Subsecs. (c) to (e) re preliminary studies; P.A. 78-218 substituted “local” for “town” school districts and deleted Subsec. (e); P.A. 85-44 amended Subsec. (a) to delete minimum and maximum enrollment standards requirement; P.A. 91-303 in Subsec. (d) deleted requirement that the study be for the purpose of establishing a regional school district which may provide for the proposed district all programs under the general supervision and control of the state board of education; P.A. 97-247 amended Subsec. (a) to remove provisions re regulations, effective July 1, 1997.

Cited. 157 C. 7; 169 C. 613; 180 C. 464.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 151 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 905 A.2d 1165 (Conn. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 905 A.2d 1165 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 6× “See Practice Book § 10-39. [20] Thus, even if a proposed pleading *1186 is alleged to be insufficient, a "plaintiff should be permitted to file [the amended pleading], so that the issues arising under it may be determined in proceedings properly adapted to that end.”

Zirinsky v. Zirinsky, 865 A.2d 488 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 9× “If this were a civil proceeding outside a postdissolution context, in which a motion to strike had been used to challenge the legal sufficiency of either a complaint, counterclaim or cross claim; see Practice Book § 10-39; the lack of a judgment would pose a serious, if not…”

Gold v. Rowland, 994 A.2d 106 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 4× “First, the majority tests the plaintiff's pleading by the wrong standard, that is, as if the motion to dismiss, which properly tests the jurisdiction of the court; see Practice Book § 10-30 et seq.”

Bender v. Bender, 975 A.2d 636 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 4× “, denied the motion on the ground that the defendants had not properly identified the allegedly necessary parties pursuant to Practice Book § 10-39 (b). 18 The defendants did not file another motion to *719 strike, but they subsequently amended their answer to include an…”

Pamela B. v. Ment, 709 A.2d 1089 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× “) § 10-39, allows for a claim for relief to be stricken only if the relief sought could not be legally awarded.”

Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 815 A.2d 1188 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 2× “2d 293 (1997); see Practice Book § 10-39. “A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading, and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court.”

37 Huntington Street v. City of Hartford, 772 A.2d 633 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “interested persons have been joined as parties to the action or have been given reasonable notice thereof.”

Izzo v. Quinn, 155 A.3d 315 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “[The motion to dismiss] essentially asserts that, as a matter of law and fact, a plaintiff cannot state a cause of action that is properly before the court.”

Kosiorek v. Smigelski, 54 A.3d 564 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “On April 29, 2009, the defendant filed a motion to implead Stanley Kosiorek, individually, pursuant to Practice Book § 10-11. 10 The court denied this motion without comment on May 20, 2009.”

Atwood v. Reg'l Sch. Dist. No. 15, 363 A.2d 1038 (Conn. 1975). · cites it 5× “Prior to the referenda a temporary regional school study committee had been established pursuant to General Statutes § 10-39, as in effect at that time.”

Heim v. California Fed. Bank, 828 A.2d 129 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 3× “2d 1040 (1992), and Practice Book §§ 10-39 through 10-45, inclusive. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that McCarthy does not apply because the issue of whether the action was legally sufficient was not before the court in McCarthy and, therefore, that court “could not…”

Murillo v. Seymour Ambulance Ass'n, 823 A.2d 1202 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-39, 4 the defendants in each case moved to strike the plaintiffs complaint, claiming that the complaints were legally insufficient.”

Show all 151 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-39(a) — 1 case

Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 905 A.2d 1165 (Conn. 2006). “See Practice Book § 10-39. [20] Thus, even if a proposed pleading *1186 is alleged to be insufficient, a "plaintiff should be permitted to file [the amended pleading], so that the issues arising under it may be determined in proceedings properly adapted to that end.”

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-39(a)(2) — 1 case

Rogan v. Rungee, 140 A.3d 979 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).

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.