Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 22 — AGRICULTURE. DOMESTIC ANIMALS · Chapter 422 — Department of Agriculture
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-4 (2026)

Appointment of commissioner

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The Commissioner of Agriculture shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of sections 4-5, 4-6, 4-7 and 4-8. Said commissioner shall receive an annual salary to be determined as provided by section 4-40 and shall devote his full time to the duties of his office.

(1949 Rev., S. 3053; 1953, 1955, June, 1955, S. 1694d; 1959, P.A. 637, S. 2; 1961, P.A. 67; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 446, 448; P.A. 77-614, S. 311, 610; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 146(e); P.A. 04-189, S. 1.)

History: 1959 act replaced commissioner of agriculture with commissioner of agriculture, conservation and natural resources; 1961 act replaced commissioner of agriculture, conservation and natural resources with commissioner of agriculture and natural resources; 1971 act replaced commissioner of agriculture and natural resources with commissioner of agriculture; P.A. 77-614 replaced “sections 4-5 to 4-8, inclusive” with list of individual sections, effective January 1, 1979; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6 replaced Commissioner of Agriculture with Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective July 1, 2004; P.A. 04-189 repealed Sec. 146 of June 30 Sp.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.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Shah v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 968 A.2d 971 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shah v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 968 A.2d 971 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 10× “On appeal, the defendant 2 claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff complied with the requirements of Practice Book § 22-4. 3 We agree and, *172 accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.”
Belica v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 12 A.3d 1067 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 11× “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in holding that a motion to reopen the board’s decision should have been treated as a motion to correct the findings of the board pursuant to Practice Book § 22-4. 1 We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial…”
JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 828 A.2d 609 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 2× “Practice Book § 22-4 provides in relevant part that “[i]f the appellant desires to have the finding of the [employment security board of review] corrected he or she must, within two weeks after the record has been filed in the superior court, unless the time is extended for…”
Tosado v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 22 A.3d 675 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 3× “Counsel further contended that, because the plaintiff faded to file a motion to correct pursuant to Practice Book § 22-4, 2 the plaintiff was precluded from challenging the board’s factual findings.”
Addona v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 996 A.2d 280 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff did not file a motion for correction of the findings in accordance with Practice Book § 22-4. Our case law is clear that the failure to file such a motion acts as a bar to any further review of the facts found in an unemployment compensation benefits hearing.”
Resso v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 83 A.3d 723 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “Although she was given notice that in order to dispute the board’s findings of fact, she would need to file a motion to correct those findings pursuant to Practice Book § 22-4, she failed to do so. 2 *664 The plaintiff then appealed to the Superior Court.”
Natasha B. v. Dept. of Child. & Families, 207 A.3d 1101 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). “The current version of the policy manual may now be found in § 22-4. The updated department policy manual; see footnote 9 of this opinion; clarifies that intent, severity, and chronicity do not all have to be found to place an individual's name on the central registry.”
Ray v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp., 36 A.3d 269 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). “Practice Book § 22-4 et seq.; Johnson v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 3 Conn.”
Mendes v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 199 Conn. App. 25 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 9× “the plaintiff’s motion to open; in an appeal from the decision of the board, the trial court is bound by the board’s factual findings and, therefore, it was improper for the trial court to review the subordinate findings of the referee, which had been adopted by the board, in…”
Mayo v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 44 A.3d 883 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, “[a] plaintiffs failure to file a timely motion [to correct] the board’s findings in accordance with [Practice Book] § 22-4 prevents further review of those facts found by the board.”
Reeder v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 869 A.2d 1288 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× ““Practice Book § 515 [now § 22-4] provides the mechanism for the correction of the board’s findings.”
Daly v. Dept. of Child. & Families, 231 Conn. App. 381 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 12× “The criteria for recommendation for placement on the central registry is set forth in § 22-4, formerly § 34-2-8, of the policy manual.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.