(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, each public service company shall have an annual comprehensive audit and report made of its accounts and operations by independent public accountants satisfactory to the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority. A copy of such annual audit report shall be filed with the authority, together with the company's annual report. In the absence of such an audit report, or if the authority, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, determines that such audit report is insufficient or unsatisfactory, the authority shall cause such an audit to be made at the expense of the company either by independent public accountants satisfactory to the authority or by any staff of the authority engaged in the activities contemplated by subsection (b) of section
16-8. The authority may waive the compliance with the provisions of this section by any public service company whose annual gross income is less than one hundred thousand dollars.
(b) In lieu of the audit and report described in subsection (a) of this section, a telephone company may elect to file with the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority the annual consolidated report on Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K that the parent company of the telephone company submits to said commission, provided such report includes an independently audited financial statement of the parent company. A telephone company serving more than seventy-five thousand customers shall also file with the authority unaudited financial statements regarding operations specific to the state of Connecticut.
(1949 Rev., S. 5422; 1967, P.A. 141; 1969, P.A. 195; P.A. 75-486, S. 14, 69; P.A. 77-222; 77-614, S. 162, 610; P.A. 80-482, S. 69, 348; P.A. 82-252, S. 2; P.A. 89-291, S. 3, 8; P.A. 96-222, S. 19, 41; P.A. 11-80, S. 1; P.A. 14-134, S. 30; P.A. 17-45, S. 1.)
History: 1967 act changed limit on gross income for waiver from $3,000 to $5,000; 1969 act raised limit to $10,000; P.A. 75-486 replaced public utilities commission with public utilities control authority and added provisions for additional audit performed by independent auditors or authority staff if report found to be insufficient or unsatisfactory; P.A. 77-222 raised gross income limit to $25,000; P.A. 77-614 replaced the authority with division of public utility control within the department of business regulation, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 80-482 made division of public utility control an independent department and deleted reference to abolished department of business regulation; P.A. 82-252 deleted obsolete reference to railroad companies and increased annual gross income of companies that may be excluded from section provisions, from under $25,000 to under $50,000; P.A. 89-291 increased annual gross income requirement to $100,000, effective July 1, 1989, and applicable to audits covering fiscal years commencing on or after January 1, 1989; P.A. 96-222 inserted “or its successor agency” after “Interstate Commerce Commission”, effective July 1, 1996; pursuant to P.A. 11-80, “Department of Public Utility Control” and “department” were changed editorially by the Revisors to “Public Utilities Regulatory Authority” and “authority”, respectively, effective July 1, 2011; P.A. 14-134 deleted reference to telegraph companies and express companies, effective June 6, 2014; P.A. 17-45 designated existing provisions re annual audit and report as Subsec. (a), added Subsec. (b) re telephone company may elect to file annual consolidated report on Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K, effective June 13, 2017.
Cited. 174 C. 556.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case:
Wiseman v. Armstrong, 989 A.2d 1027 (Conn. 2010).
Wiseman v. Armstrong, 989 A.2d 1027 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 88× “Thereafter, pursuant to Practice Book § 16-32, [3] the plaintiff requested that the trial court poll the jury.”
Northrup v. Witkowski, 210 A.3d 29 (Conn. 2019).
· cites it 10× “The court ultimately concluded that, ‘‘although there is language in § 16-32 of the [Naugatuck Code of Ordinances] that requires the streets commis- sion to maintain and repair the town’s storm water sewer system, the ordinance contains no provisions that mandate the time or…”
Northrup v. Witkowski, 167 A.3d 443 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 9× “; an affidavit from Helen Northrup; a copy of the "October, 2009 Stormwater Management Report for the Nettleton Avenue Neighborhood"; a copy of chapter 16, article II, § 16-32 of the town's code of ordinances; Witkowski, Jr.”
Micalizzi v. Stewart, 188 A.3d 159 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 5× “communicating with the jury nor tailored such communications to the scope of the jury's question in violation of *695 Practice Book § 16-28, 17 (3) deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to ensure that only full exhibits were submitted to the jury, and (4) discharged the jury…”
Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 3 A.3d 892 (Conn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “We recently had the opportunity to examine the role of jury polling in civil cases pursuant to Practice Book § 16-32 17 in Wiseman v. Armstrong, 295 Conn.”
New Haven Water Co. v. Town of North Branford, 392 A.2d 456 (Conn. 1978).
“tled “An Act Concerning the Assessment of Personal Property of Water Companies,” to add the following sentence: “The fair market value of such personal property, when owned by a public service company, shall be the depreciated value, in accordance with the uniform system of…”
In re Messiah S., 53 A.3d 224 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
“2d 1027 (2010), our Supreme Court held that the improper failure of a trial court to honor a litigant’s request for a jury poll pursuant to Practice Book § 16-32 was not a structural error, even though, concededly, compliance with the rule of practice was mandatory.”
State v. Bolton, 352 Conn. 477 (Conn. 2025).
· cites it 2× “The court further concluded that the record did not support a claim of coercion and that reinstructing the jury on the Chip Smith charge did not prejudice the defendant, especially given the lack of any exception to the original charge.”
De Leon v. Jacob Bros., Inc., 446 A.2d 831 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1981).
“See also Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 16-32, pp. 1095-96 n.25 (1978); “Irrebuttable Presumptions: An Illusory Analysis,” 27 Stan.”
State v. Angel A. (Dissent) (Conn. App. Ct. 2025).
“3 In contrast, in a civil case, a violation of Practice Book § 16-32—the civil counterpart of Practice Book § 42-31—is subject to harmless error review.”
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.