Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 10 — EDUCATION AND CULTURE · Chapter 164 — Educational Opportunities
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-50 (2026)

Admission of adjacent town to district

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 10-50 is repealed.

(1949 Rev., S. 1375; 1951, 1953, 1955, S. 905d; 1953, S. 919d; February, 1965, P.A. 411, S. 4; 1969, P.A. 698, S. 27.)

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 108 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lorson, 192 A.3d 439 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lorson, 192 A.3d 439 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 4× “Having determined that the defendants could properly raise the plaintiff's noncompliance with HUD regulations as a special defense, we consider whether the defendants had the affirmative duty to plead that defense.”
McKenna v. Delente, 2 A.3d 38 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 5× “The court, relying on Practice Book § 10-50, concluded that the defendant’s failure to plead specially the defense of unconscionability required the exclusion of this evidence.”
Shapero v. Mercede, 823 A.2d 1263 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff argues that regardless of whether the $5000 credit is characterized as a defense of payment or as a setoff, it should have been affirma *503 tively pleaded as such, in accordance with Practice Book §§ 10-50 or 10-54. 8 The plaintiff contends that by crediting the…”
Parente v. Pirozzoli, 866 A.2d 629 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “3 The court declined to consider the defendant’s argument, noting in its written conclusions of law that illegality is a special defense that, pursuant to Practice Book § 10-50, must be specially pleaded, and that the defendant had not done so.”
Coughlin v. Anderson, 853 A.2d 460 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “2d 806 (1994); see also Practice Book § 10-50. 18 *502 We previously have recognized the difficulties that inhere in distinguishing between evidence that may be presented following a general denial and evidence that, because it is consistent with the allegations of a complaint…”
Bruno v. Geller, 46 A.3d 974 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “” Specifically, she claims that the court improperly (1) relied on the defendants’ affidavit and their uncerti-fied documents and (2) considered the defendants’ motion for summary judgment despite the defendants’ failure to plead in accordance with Practice Book § § 10-50 and…”
Braffman v. Bank of Am. Corp., 998 A.2d 1169 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 7× “1 The plaintiffs contend that the trial court improperly disregarded Practice Book § 10-50 2 and improperly allocated the burden of proof by requiring them to disprove the defendant’s special defense that it previously had made payment to them.”
Barrett v. Montesano, 849 A.2d 839 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “” In addition, the Practice Book provision setting forth what facts may be proved under a general denial and what defenses must be specially pleaded; Practice Book *797 § 10-50; 7 identifies the defense of the statute of limitations but not the statute of repose.”
Wasko v. Farley, 947 A.2d 978 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “The court found that mitigation does not have to be specially pleaded because it is not listed among the defenses in Practice Book § 10-50 that need to be specially pleaded.”
Comm'r of Mental Health & Addiction Servs. v. Saeedi, 71 A.3d 619 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). ““Practice Book § 10-50 provides that [f]acts which are consistent with [the claimant’s allegations] but show, notwithstanding, that the plaintiff has no cause of action, must be specially alleged.”
Kaye v. Housman, 195 A.3d 1168 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 3× “" Practice Book § 10-50 defines the purpose of a special defense.”
BRAFFMAN v. Bank of Am. Corp., 998 A.2d 1169 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 7× “[1] The plaintiffs contend that the trial court improperly disregarded Practice Book § 10-50 [2] and improperly allocated the burden of proof by requiring them to disprove the defendant's special defense that it previously had made payment to them.”
Show all 108 citing cases →
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.