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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-60 (2025)

Borrowing in addition to bonds

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In addition to the power to issue bonds, notes and other obligations as provided by section 10-56, such regional board of education may, when so authorized by a majority vote at a regional school district meeting called for such purpose, borrow sums of money and issue bonds, notes or other obligations, and pay interest thereon, to acquire land, prepare sites, purchase or erect buildings and equip buildings for school purposes, secure the services of architects and professional consultants, and operate and maintain regional schools, and for contingent or other necessary expenses connected therewith in principal amounts which shall not exceed in the aggregate five hundred thousand dollars at any time. Such sums may be borrowed for a term not to exceed ten years. Persons eligible to vote under the provisions of section 7-6 may vote on such issue. Such loans, bonds, notes or other obligations shall be general obligations of such district and the member towns. The regional board of education, or such officer or body to whom the board delegates the authority to make such determinations, shall determine the date, maturity, interest rate, form, manner of sale and other terms of such loans, bonds, notes or other obligations.

(1949 Rev., S. 1384; 1951, 1953, 1955, S. 915d; 1969, P.A. 290, S. 1; 698, S. 17; P.A. 78-218, S. 38; P.A. 88-67, S. 1, 2; P.A. 89-337, S. 5, 6.)

History: 1969 acts changed $100,000 limit on borrowing to $200,000, made borrowing power dependent on authorization by majority vote at regional district meeting rather than “when deemed necessary” and made technical changes to simplify wording; P.A. 78-218 substituted “chairperson” for “chairman”; P.A. 88-67 increased limit on borrowing to $500,000, increased the 5-year term for borrowing to 10 years and made technical changes; P.A. 89-337 clarified that bonds, notes and other obligations could be issued under this section, restated the allowable purposes of those types of debts and clarified the powers which the board may delegate to an officer or body under this section.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 95 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Perugini v. Giuliano, 89 A.3d 358 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Perugini v. Giuliano, 89 A.3d 358 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 12× “Practice Book § 10-60 (b) provides: The judicial authority may restrain such amendments so far as may be necessary to compel the parties to join issue in a reasonable time for trial.”
Pekera v. Purpora, 869 A.2d 1210 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 14× “Although the plaintiffs never filed a written request to amend their pleadings in accordance with § 10-60, nor did they expressly request permission to amend their complaint as permitted alternatively under § 10-60(a)(1), it is clear that the trial court and both parties…”
GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Ford, 73 A.3d 742 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 4× “It is not an opportunity to file wholly amended pleadings that assert new legal claims or rely on a wholly unrelated set of facts, permission for which ordinarily could be obtained only in accordance with the provisions of *181 Practice Book § 10-60.”
Kevin Wagner v. Clark Equip. Co., 788 A.2d 83 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 3× “14 The defendants filed an objection to the plaintiffs October 16, 1997 request to amend on November 4, 1997, pursuant to what is now Practice Book § 10-60 (a). 15 The trial court, Handy, J.”
Hepburn v. Brill, 312 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2024). · cites it 4× “authority under § 46b-59: The defendant’s objection to the plaintiff’s amended petition was premised on his claim that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the rule of practice (§ 10-60) governing amendments to pleadings in civil matters, but visitation is governed by the…”
Town of New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth., 970 A.2d 592 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 2× “Knox, 1 Connecticut Practice Series: Connecticut Superior Court Civil Rules (2009) § 10-60, comment (3), p. 558 (“[t]he question of what constitutes a new cause of action may be crucial *484 when a plaintiff seeks to expand or alter his complaint subsequent to the expiration of…”
Olympia Mortg. Corp. v. Klein, 763 A.2d 1055 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “3 On July 8, 1999, pursuant to Practice Book § 10-60 (a) 4 and General Statutes § 52-72 (a), the plaintiff filed a request for leave to amend and requested that the *307 return date of June 1, 1999, be changed to May 11, 1999, in order to comply with § 52-48 (b).”
Connecticut Coalition for Just. in Educ. Funding, Inc. v. Rell, 990 A.2d 206 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 2× “[3] The individual plaintiffs in this case are: (1) Nekita Carroll-Hall, who resides in Bridgeport with her children Ana-Simone Hall and Jacob Hall; (2) Marta Calderon, who resides in Bridgeport with her grandson Angel Calderon; (3) Richard Molinaro, who resides in Danbury with…”
Wilcox v. Ferraina, 920 A.2d 316 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “4 As the *546 defendants did not file a timely objection to the request, the complaint was amended automatically in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book § 10-60 (a). 5 The plaintiffs later filed a demand for a jury trial on the damages claim, which is still pending…”
Burton v. City of Stamford, 971 A.2d 739 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 3× “Practice Book § 10-60 (a) (2) (permitting amendment by written consent of adverse party); Practice Book § 10-60 (a) (3) (permitting party alternatively to file request for leave to file amendment).”
Cong. Street Condo. Ass'n v. Anderson, 33 A.3d 274 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 6× “Practice Book § 10-60, which addresses the amendment of pleadings by consent, order of the judicial authority or by the failure of the adverse party to object, expressly allows a court to rule as the court did in the present case. Practice Book § 10-60(b) provides in relevant…”
Fennelly v. Norton, 931 A.2d 269 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “" [8] Peabody sought to amend its complaint by order of judicial authority, which is permitted under Practice Book § 10-60. By contrast, the plaintiffs in the present case were free to amend their application as of right, under General Statutes § 52-128 and Practice Book §…”
Show all 95 citing cases →
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-60(a): 4 cases
Pekera v. Purpora, 869 A.2d 1210 (Conn. 2005). “Although the plaintiffs never filed a written request to amend their pleadings in accordance with § 10-60, nor did they expressly request permission to amend their complaint as permitted alternatively under § 10-60(a)(1), it is clear that the trial court and both parties…”
Wilcox v. Ferraina, 920 A.2d 316 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). “4 As the *546 defendants did not file a timely objection to the request, the complaint was amended automatically in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book § 10-60 (a). 5 The plaintiffs later filed a demand for a jury trial on the damages claim, which is still pending…”
Justin Lund v. Milford Hosp., Inc., 168 A.3d 479 (Conn. 2017).
Squillante v. Capital Region Dev. Auth., 266 A.3d 940 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-60(a)(1): 1 case
Pekera v. Purpora, 869 A.2d 1210 (Conn. 2005). “Although the plaintiffs never filed a written request to amend their pleadings in accordance with § 10-60, nor did they expressly request permission to amend their complaint as permitted alternatively under § 10-60(a)(1), it is clear that the trial court and both parties…”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-60(b): 1 case
Cong. Street Condo. Ass'n v. Anderson, 33 A.3d 274 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). “Practice Book § 10-60, which addresses the amendment of pleadings by consent, order of the judicial authority or by the failure of the adverse party to object, expressly allows a court to rule as the court did in the present case. Practice Book § 10-60(b) provides in relevant…”
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.