Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-23 (2026)

Regulations and service prescribed by authority deemed reasonable

✓ current as of May 2026

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

All regulations, practices and service prescribed by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority shall be in force and prima facie reasonable, unless suspended or found otherwise in an action brought for that purpose or until changed or modified by the authority.

(1949 Rev., S. 5413; P.A. 75-486, S. 1, 69; P.A. 77-614, S. 162, 610; P.A. 80-482, S. 62, 348; P.A. 11-80, S. 1.)

History: P.A. 75-486 replaced public utilities commission with public utilities control authority; P.A. 77-614 replaced public utilities control authority with division of public utility control within the department of business regulation, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 80-482 made division an independent department and deleted reference to abolished department of business regulation; pursuant to P.A. 11-80, “Department of Public Utility Control” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Public Utilities Regulatory Authority”, effective July 1, 2011.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1970–2017 · leading case: Scanlon v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 782 A.2d 87 (Conn. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scanlon v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 782 A.2d 87 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 4× “The plaintiffs assert that we are not bound to review the defendant’s claim of instructional error, and that we should not do so, because the defendant’s requests to charge did not comply with Practice Book § 16-23, which provides that no more than fifteen requests to charge may…”

Shook v. E. Connecticut Health Network, Inc., 165 A.3d 256 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 5× “We conclude that the defendants did not present these evidentiary arguments, statutes, and cases to the trial court, and, further, that they failed to comply with the specific requirement in Practice Book § 16-23 to set forth evidence to support a comparative negligence…”

Sorrentino v. All Seasons Servs., Inc., 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 421 (Conn. 1998). “See Practice Book § 16-23 (a), formerly § 318, which provides that requests to charge must be in separate paragraphs “each containing a single proposition of law clearly and concisely stated with the citation of authority upon which it is based .”

S. New England Tel. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 282 A.2d 915 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1970). · cites it 2× “” The commission claims sanction for this is found in General Statutes § 16-23, wherein it is stated: “All regulations, practices and service prescribed by the commission shall be in force and prima facie reasonable .”

Hall v. Bergman, 943 A.2d 515 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). “See Practice Book § 16-23. The plaintiffs claim on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the court’s instructing the jury on the advice of counsel special defense.”

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.