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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-38 (2025)

Bill re person's service as teacher or public employee

✓ 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
When any bill is introduced in the General Assembly on behalf of any person by reason of such person's service as a teacher or as an employee of the state or any political subdivision thereof, the Teachers' Retirement Board, if such service was as a teacher, or the State Employees Retirement Commission, if such service was as an employee of the state or such subdivision, shall prepare a record of pertinent facts regarding such person and such person's service, including any action previously taken by the General Assembly, and shall transmit such record to the chairman of the committee to which such bill has been referred.

(1949 Rev., S. 37; P.A. 10-32, S. 2.)

History: P.A. 10-32 made technical changes, effective May 10, 2010.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 931 A.2d 319 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 931 A.2d 319 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 20× “Pursuant to Practice Book § 2-38, the plaintiff filed a petition for judicial review with the Superior Court, which dismissed the appeal.”
Connor v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 797 A.2d 1081 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 16× “, from the adverse decision of the defendant, the statewide grievance committee, based upon the court’s determination that the plaintiffs failure to serve the complaint on the defendant in accordance with General Statutes § 52-50 (a) 1 rendered service defective under Practice…”
Shelton v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 890 A.2d 104 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 7× “4 (3) was not supported by substantial evidence as required by Practice Book § 2-38 (f) (5); 3 and (2) remanded the case *102 to the trial court with direction to render judgment rescinding the reprimand rather than with direction to remand the case to the committee to hold a…”
Somers v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 715 A.2d 712 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 4× “2d 1202 (1996); see Practice Book § 2-38 (f). “[C]lear and convincing proof denotes a degree of belief that lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt…”
Off. of Chief Disciplinary Couns. v. Vaccaro, 317 A.3d 785 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 6× “from the reviewing committee’s ruling because the reviewing committee ordered presentment rather than imposing sanctions or conditions was unavailing, as the applicable rule of practice (§ 2-38) provides thirty days to file an appeal to the court, and Practice Book § 2-47 (d)…”
Lewis v. Slack, 955 A.2d 620 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 4× “” Pursuant to Practice Book § 2-38, the plaintiff then filed a petition for judicial review with the Superior Court.”
MacHado v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 890 A.2d 622 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 6× “On April 17, 2003, the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to Practice Book § 2-38 6 from the defendant’s decision reprimanding him.”
Peck v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 232 A.3d 1279 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 3× “’’2 The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s appeal was an attempt to circumvent his failure to appeal from the defendant’s 2013 decision.”
Cohen v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 261 A.3d 722 (Conn. 2021). · cites it 3× “6 The plaintiff next appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to Practice Book § 2-38, arguing in relevant part that (1) the reviewing committee’s finding that the June 24, 2013 amended final accounting ‘‘constituted a knowingly false statement’’ to a tribunal was clearly…”
Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Egbarin, 767 A.2d 732 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “2d 1058 (1997), citing Practice Book § 27N (f), now § 2-38 (f). 11 “[E]very reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling.”
Disciplinary Couns. v. Elder, 159 A.3d 220 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 2× “l or on a screening panel to determine whether the complaint should be dismissed necessarily implies that the defendant is not barred from seeking review of those decisions at a later stage of the proceedings, that is, in the proceedings before the grievance panel or reviewing…”
Johnson v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 726 A.2d 1154 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 2× “For example, judicial review of a committee decision to reprimand an attorney, like judicial review of an agency determination under UAPA, is limited, both with respect to the committee’s factual findings and its determination regarding the suitability of a reprimand as the…”
Show all 32 citing cases →
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-38(a): 2 cases
Shelton v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 857 A.2d 432 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
Cerame v. Bowler, No. 3:21-cv-01502 (D. Conn. Aug. 29, 2022).
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-38(f): 2 cases
Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 931 A.2d 319 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). “Pursuant to Practice Book § 2-38, the plaintiff filed a petition for judicial review with the Superior Court, which dismissed the appeal.”
Shelton v. Statewide Grievance Comm., 857 A.2d 432 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
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.