Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 02 — GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND LEGISLATIVE AGENCIES · Chapter 16 — General Assembly
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-29 (2025)

Engrossing of bills and amendments; correction of errors after passage. Presentation to the Governor

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Immediately upon the passage of any bill, the clerk of the house last taking action thereon shall cause a copy thereof to be sent to the Governor. All bills and proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be engrossed in print as soon as passed, under the direction of the legislative commissioners, on suitable paper of uniform size, with wide margins; and the commissioners shall carefully compare all engrossed bills and amendments with the bills and amendments as finally passed and one of them shall certify by his signature to the correctness of the engrossed copies. As soon as engrossed and certified, as herein provided, such bills and amendments shall be presented to the House and Senate clerks, who shall sign such engrossed and certified copies. The house last taking action on any bill may, before engrossing, order its immediate presentation to the Governor for his approval. If either commissioner or the clerk of the House or Senate, after the final passage of any bill or proposed amendment and prior to its certification, finds that an error of form has been made in its text, he shall deliver the bill or proposed amendment to the Joint Committee on Legislative Management with a written statement as to the error. If the committee believes that no correction should be made, it shall so inform the commissioner or the clerk. If the committee believes that a correction should be made, it shall, within five calendar days, Sundays and holidays excepted, after its passage, report the bill or proposed amendment with the proposed correction in the form of an amendment to the house which last took action thereon. Each such bill and proposed amendment, with the engrossed copy thereof, shall be transmitted by the clerks of the House and Senate to the secretary as soon as it has been signed, as herein provided, and not later than the twelfth day after the expiration of the time allowed for reconsideration under the rules of the General Assembly, Sundays and legal holidays excepted; and the secretary shall forthwith present the engrossed copy of each such bill to the Governor for his approval. The secretary shall give the clerks a receipt for each such bill and proposed amendment and shall notify them of the date and hour at which each bill was presented to the Governor. The secretary shall give the Governor a receipt showing the date and hour at which the Governor approved it or returned it to the secretary with a statement of his objections and shall notify the clerks of such dates and hours. The clerks shall record such dates and hours of presentation and approval or return in the journals of the House and Senate.

(1949 Rev., S. 41; 1957, P.A. 1, S. 10; 1959, P.A. 478, S. 3; 1961, P.A. 350, S. 2; 1967, P.A. 254, S. 1; P.A. 76-198, S. 1, 2.)

History: 1959 act made technical changes necessary because of appointment of two legislative commissioners instead of one; 1961 act extended, from five to twelve days after time for reconsideration, mandatory date for transmittal of engrossed bills to secretary; 1967 act replaced “resolution” with “proposed amendment” and removed language providing that constitutional amendments proposed by house be signed only by the house clerk; P.A. 76-198 changed reference to “committee on rules” to “committee on legislative management” and time limit for making correction before engrossing; (Revisor's note: In 1995 the word “Joint” was added editorially by the Revisors in the phrase “Committee on Legislative Management” to conform section with Sec. 2-71a).

See Conn. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 15; Conn. Const. Amdts. Art. III.

Governor may withdraw approval of bill improperly placed before him. 79 C. 151. History of section. 87 C. 515.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Johnson v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 726 A.2d 1154 (Conn. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 726 A.2d 1154 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 3× “do not expressly require the exhaustion of administrative remedies before a judicial remedy may be sought, we nevertheless conclude that, in light of the comprehensive nature of the administrative scheme, exhaustion of the remedies available thereunder is a jurisdictional…”
Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 931 A.2d 319 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “; Practice Book § 2-29 et seq. Those provisions provide methods of procedure that complement, but do not confine, a court's inherent power to discipline its officers.”
Somers v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 715 A.2d 712 (Conn. 1998). “8 In accordance with Practice Book § 2-29 (a) and General Statutes § 51-90f, the defendant forwarded Barrett’s complaint to the grievance panel for the Hartford-New Britain judicial district (local panel).”
Daniels v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 804 A.2d 1027 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). “In accordance with Practice Book § 2-29 (a) and General Statutes § 51-90e, the defendant referred the complaint to the local grievance panel in the judicial district of New Haven.”
Stiegler v. Meriden, 307 A.3d 894 (Conn. 2024). “do not expressly require the exhaustion of administrative remedies before a judicial remedy may be sought . . . in light of the comprehensive nature of the administrative scheme, exhaustion of the remedies available thereun- der is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial…”
Lafferty v. Jones, 316 A.3d 742 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). “6, 28 (court initiated disciplinary proceedings against attorney after opposing counsel, during hearing on motion for sanctions, represented to court that one of purported plaintiffs had not authorized attorney to commence action); Briggs v.”
Lafferty v. Jones, 316 A.3d 742 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). “’’ In support of his position, Pattis cites several disciplinary cases in which trial courts considered whether to discipline attorneys on the basis of conduct that either (1) the courts observed directly or (2) occurred outside of the courts’ presence but was brought to the…”
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.