Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 16 — PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANIES · Chapter 277 — Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. Office of Consumer Counsel. Miscellaneous Provisions
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-22 (2026)

Rates; transfer of assets or franchise; burden of proof

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
At any hearing involving a rate or the transfer of ownership of assets or a franchise of a public service company, the burden of proving that said rate under consideration is just and reasonable or that said transfer of assets or franchise is in the public interest shall be on the public service company. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the regulation of a telecommunications service which is a competitive service, as defined in section 16-247a.

(1949 Rev., S. 5412; P.A. 75-486, S. 13, 69; P.A. 94-83, S. 14, 16.)

History: P.A. 75-486 made section applicable to transfers of asset ownership or franchise; P.A. 94-83 added provision re applicability to competitive telecommunications service, effective July 1, 1994.

Cited. 158 C. 626; 183 C. 128.

Cited. 24 CS 446; 29 CS 253; Id., 379; 30 CS 36; Id., 149.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2022 · leading case: Kalams v. Giacchetto, 842 A.2d 1100 (Conn. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kalams v. Giacchetto, 842 A.2d 1100 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “In the absence of any formal fact-finding proceeding, however, he denied the request to rectify the record to indicate that the request to charge had been filed with the court clerk as required by Practice Book § 16-22. 6 The request to charge stated in relevant part: “To be…”
Connecticut Nat. Gas Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Control Auth., 439 A.2d 282 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 16-22. The PUCA’s rate-making must follow the requirements of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA); General Statutes §§ 4-166 through 4-189; for “contested cases.”
Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Council on Water Co., 453 F. Supp. 942 (D. Conn. 1978). · cites it 2× “We also reject plaintiffs’ contention that Conn.Gen.Stat. § 16-22 unconstitutionally requires them to assume the burden of proof that a transfer of their property must be shown to be in the public interest.”
Ne. Tel. Co. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 477 F. Supp. 251 (D. Conn. 1978). · cites it 2× “Conn.Gen.Stat. § 16-22 (1977). In addition, when considering alterations in specific rates and services, as well as when examining “the expansion of plant and equipment .”
S. New England Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 282 A.2d 915 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1970). · cites it 2× “” The claim is made that this is not a fact but a conclusion, reached without reason or even discussion as to the propriety, expediency or legality of such a conclusion.”
Hartford Consum. Activists Ass'n v. Hausman, 381 F. Supp. 1275 (D. Conn. 1974). · cites it 4× “First, the plaintiffs claim that the Interim Finding and Order evidenced a predetermination by the PUC of the merits of the rate increase both in violation of their rights to a fair hearing and of Conn.Gen.Stat. § 16-22. However, the Order makes clear that the partial rate…”
Lawson v. Aetna Life Ins., 755 A.2d 351 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “Practice Book § 16-22 requires that “[w]iitten requests to charge the jury and written requests for jury interrogatories must be filed with the clerk before the beginning of arguments or at such an earlier time as the judicial authority directs, and the clerk shall file them and…”
Connecticut Nat. Gas Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 289 A.2d 711 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1971). · cites it 2× “II The PUC finding, the paragraphs of which are unnumbered, is based essentially upon two grounds: (1) the failure of CNG to file a proposed amendment of its existing rate schedule as required under General Statutes §16-19; (2) the failure of CNG to sustain its burden of proof…”
State v. Saez, 758 A.2d 894 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). “Practice Book § 16-22, which governs the timing of the filing of requests to charge, provides in relevant part: “Written requests to charge the jury .”
Hackling v. Casbro Constr. of Rhode Island, 786 A.2d 1214 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). “” Practice Book § 16-22 provides in relevant part: “Written requests to charge the jury and written requests for jury interrogatories must be filed with the clerk before the beginning of arguments or at such an earlier time as the judicial authority directs .”
Town of Vernon v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 318 A.2d 121 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1971). · cites it 2× “This court has *39 reviewed the record certified pursuant to General Statutes § 16-37, without the taking of any testimony. At any hearing before the commission involving rates, the burden of proving that the rates requested are just and reasonable is upon the public service…”
Byrne v. Avery Ctr. for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 212 Conn. App. 339 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). “The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s request to submit to the jury interrogatories distinguishing between past and future damages: the request was untimely filed, as the defendant did not request such interrogatories until after the trial court…”
Show all 13 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.