There shall be a state Department of Agriculture, consisting of a Commissioner of Agriculture and, subject to the provisions of chapter 67, such employees as may be necessary for the performance of the duties required by the general statutes.
(1953, S. 1691d; 1959, P.A. 637, S. 2; 1961, P.A. 67; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 446, 448; P.A. 77-614, S. 309, 610; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 146(e), (f); P.A. 04-189, S. 1.)
History: 1959 act replaced commissioner and department of agriculture with commissioner and department of agriculture, conservation and natural resources; 1961 act replaced commissioner and department of agriculture, conservation and natural resources with commissioner and department of agriculture and natural resources; 1971 act replaced commissioner and department of agriculture and natural resources with commissioner and department of agriculture; P.A. 77-614 deleted board of agriculture and deputy commissioner, effective January 1, 1979; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6 replaced Commissioner and Department of Agriculture with Commissioner and Department of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective July 1, 2004; P.A. 04-189 repealed Sec. 146 of June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, thereby reversing the merger of the Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective June 1, 2004.
Secs. 22-1a and 22-1b. Commissioner, department and council, general terminology change. Sections 22-1a and 22-1b are repealed.
(1959, P.A. 637, S. 2–5; 1961, P.A. 39, S. 2; 67; 217; February, 1965, P.A. 24, S. 1; 1967, P.A. 94, S. 1; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 154.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case:
Gagne v. Vaccaro, 766 A.2d 416 (Conn. 2001).
Gagne v. Vaccaro, 766 A.2d 416 (Conn. 2001).
“That decision, however, differentiating between the services performed and the method of compensation, is informative.”
Sw. Appraisal Grp., LLC v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 155 A.3d 738 (Conn. 2017).
“The plaintiff subsequently appealed from the decision of the board to the trial court in accordance with General Statutes § 31-249b 6 and Practice Book § 22-1 et seq. Following oral argument, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision agreeing with the board's conclusion…”
Addona v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 996 A.2d 280 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
“9 Our Supreme Court has stated: “Under our existing case law, we have distinguished . . . between two kinds of administrative remands.”
R.B. Cronland Bldg. Supplies, Inc. v. Sneed, 589 S.E.2d 891 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
“C.G.S. § 22-1 (2001). Therefore, Cronland Building Supplies’ alleged oral “explanations” to defendant of her liability as guarantor do not create an enforceable contract.”
Harrison v. McNamara, 228 F. Supp. 406 (D. Conn. 1964).
“Assuming, without deciding, as plaintiff argues, that section 22-1 gives the Secretary the discretionary power to hold a hearing for a temporary employee, we find no abuse of that discretion in refusing to order it.”
Law Offices of Johnson v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 924 A.2d 859 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 4× “(4) No provision of the General Statutes or the Practice Book requires that a copy of the record be provided to the [plaintiff]. The only requirement is that the board, not the [defendant], certify a copy of the record of proceedings before it to the court; General Statutes §…”
Finan v. Finan, 945 A.2d 476 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
“, Practice Book § 17-53 (“[t]he execution shall issue on the third business day after the filing of the affidavit”); Practice Book § 22-1 (a) (“[t]he chair of the [employment security board of review] shall, within the third business day after such filing, cause the original…”
Vogue v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 344 Conn. 321 (Conn. 2022).
“; see General Statutes § 31-249b; Practice Book § 22-1 et seq.; asserting that ‘‘several of the board’s findings were not supported by the evidence and that the board had mis- applied relevant legal principles to the facts of the case.”
Vogue v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 202 Conn. App. 291 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
“In February, 2017, the plaintiff appealed from the decision of the board to the trial court in accordance with General Statutes § 31-249b4 and Practice Book § 22-1 et seq. In its appeal, the plaintiff asserted that several of the board’s findings were not supported by the…”
Smith Debnam Narron Drake Saintsing & Myers (N.C. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “C.G.S. § 22-1 (2023). Such requirement “was designed to guard against fraudulent claims supported by perjured testimony; it was not meant to be used by defendants to evade an obligation[.”
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.