If any vacancy of a utility commissioner occurs in the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority at any time when the General Assembly is not in session, the Governor shall appoint a utility commissioner to fill such vacancy until such vacancy is filled at the next session of the General Assembly.
(1949 Rev., S. 5392; P.A. 75-486, S. 1, 69; P.A. 77-614, S. 162, 610; P.A. 78-303, S. 79, 136; P.A. 11-80, S. 18; P.A. 13-298, S. 5.)
History: P.A. 75-486 replaced public utilities commission with public utilities control authority; P.A. 77-614 would have replaced public utilities control authority with division of public utility control within the department of business regulation, effective January 1, 1979, except for action of P.A. 78-303 which retained reference to authority in this section; P.A. 11-80 changed “Public Utilities Control Authority” to “Public Utilities Regulatory Authority” and “commissioner” to “director”, effective July 1, 2011; P.A. 13-298 added “of a utility commissioner” re vacancy, replaced “director” with “utility commissioner”, deleted provision re filling any other vacancy and made a technical change, effective July 8, 2013.
Read together with Sec. 4-1, this section provides that, on failure of General Assembly to act on nomination submitted by the Governor, the incumbent commissioner holds over as a de jure officer. 136 C. 312.
Notes of Decisions
Cybulski v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 682 A.2d 1073 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 2× “4 The plaintiff argues that the trial court was *112 authorized to take additional testimony as to the public status of Cybulski Road pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8 (k) 5 because Lego failed to provide the commission with substantial evidence concerning title to the road.”
Petruzzi v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 408 A.2d 243 (Conn. 1979).
“any provision of a statute or ordinance which takes away that right in an unreasonable manner, or in a manner not grounded on the public welfare, is invalid.”
State v. Pierce, 849 A.2d 375 (Conn. 2004).
“2d 249 (1987), this court held that the defendant’s claim that the trial court had not followed the requirements of Practice Book § 847 (now § 16-3) and General Statutes §§ 1-23 and 1-25 in administering oaths to the voir dire panel and petit jurors did not warrant review under…”
Johnson v. Meehan, 626 A.2d 244 (Conn. 1993).
“1988) § 16-3, p. 1445. In my view, rational basis review should be abandoned in favor of a higher level of scrutiny when a legislative classification burdens the politically *552 powerless or unpopular, or when the only time that a purpose is advanced for a classification is in…”
MGM Desert Inn, Inc. v. Holz, 411 S.E.2d 399 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
“C.G.S. § 16-3 (1983). The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act provides, “The provisions of this Article shall not apply to foreign judgments based on claims which are contrary to the public policies of North Carolina.”
South Lyme Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Town of Old Lyme, 121 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D. Conn. 2000).
“2d 243, 246 (1979) (quoting 2 Yokely, Zoning Law & Practice § 16-3 at 219), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that “[a] lawfully established nonconforming use is a vested right and is entitled to constitutional protection.”
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.