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. § 16-5 (2026)

Removal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Misconduct, material neglect of duty, incompetence in the conduct of his office or active participation in political management or campaigns by any commissioner shall constitute cause for removal. Such removal shall be made only after judgment of the Superior Court rendered upon written complaint of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may file such complaint in his discretion and shall file such complaint if so directed by the Governor. Upon the filing of such complaint, a rule to show cause shall issue to the accused, who may make any proper answer within such time as the court may limit and shall have the right to be heard in his own defense and by witnesses and counsel. The procedure upon such complaint shall be similar to that in civil actions, but such complaint shall be privileged in order of trial and shall be heard as soon as practicable. If, after hearing, the court finds cause for removal, it shall render judgment to that effect, and thereupon the office of such commissioner shall become vacant.

(1949 Rev., S. 5394.)

Continued violation of statutory duty would constitute material neglect of duty. 111 C. 639. Statute does not violate due process. Id., 647. Former provision required Attorney General to file complaint on petition of one hundred electors alleging facts not manifestly untrue. 112 C. 586.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1980–2014 · leading case: Stafford Higgins Indus., Inc. v. City of Norwalk, 715 A.2d 46 (Conn. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stafford Higgins Indus., Inc. v. City of Norwalk, 715 A.2d 46 (Conn. 1998). “1988) § 16-5, p. 1451. By failing to enforce the plaintiffs constitutional right of equal protection, the majority encourages town officials to ignore this ideal of law.”
United Illuminating Co. v. City of New Haven, 427 A.2d 830 (Conn. 1980). “Tribe, American Constitutional Law (1978) §16-5, p. 1000; see also Nowak, Rotunda & Young, Constitutional Law (1978), pp.”
State v. Lane, 922 A.2d 1107 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). “He further stated that the police had “roughed me up a little.”
Carrano v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 854 A.2d 771 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). “Where the court determines a unity of interest exists, several plaintiffs or several defendants may be considered as a single party for the purpose of making challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly.”
Kortner v. Martise (Conn. 2014). “Therefore, we con- clude that it was not properly received into evidence and should not have been given to the jury pursuant to Practice Book § 16-5. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff waived any claim related to plaintiff’s exhibit 7 because she requested that it be…”
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.