(a) Any person who violates any provision of this chapter or any regulation, permit or order adopted or issued under this chapter, or any owner of land who knowingly permits such violations to occur on his land, shall be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars, to be fixed by the court, for each offense. Each violation shall be a separate and distinct offense and, in the case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance thereof shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense. The Attorney General, upon request of the commissioner, shall institute a civil action in the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford to recover such penalty.
(b) If any person violates any provision of this chapter or any regulation, permit or order adopted or issued under this chapter, the commissioner may request the Attorney General to bring an action in the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford to enjoin such person from such violation and to order remedial measures to prevent, control or abate pollution. If two or more persons are responsible for a violation of any provision of this chapter or any regulation, permit or order adopted or issued under this chapter, such persons shall be jointly and severally liable under this subsection.
(c) Any action brought by the Attorney General pursuant to this section shall have precedence in the order of trial as provided in section 52-191.
(P.A. 85-334, S. 4, 8; P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; P.A. 89-270, S. 1; P.A. 90-98, S. 1, 2; P.A. 93-142, S. 4, 7, 8; P.A. 95-220, S. 4–6.)
History: P.A. 88-230 replaced “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain” with “judicial district of Hartford”, effective September 1, 1991; P.A. 89-270 entirely replaced prior provisions limiting penalties to violations of final orders and applied penalty to violations of the chapter or any regulation, permit or order adopted or order issued thereunder, and added new provisions making landowners who knowingly permitted violations to occur subject to penalty and re actions by attorney general; P.A. 90-98 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1991, to September 1, 1993; P.A. 93-142 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1993, to September 1, 1996, effective June 14, 1993; P.A. 95-220 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1996, to September 1, 1998, effective July 1, 1995.
Cited. 215 C. 82; 227 C. 175.
Cited. 19 CA 216. Section is civil in nature and applicable sanctions serve predominately remedial and compensatory interests. 71 CA 1.
Notes of Decisions
Comm'r of Env't Prot. v. Connecticut Bldg. Wrecking Co., 629 A.2d 1116 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 17× “In addition, §§ 22a-226 and 22a-438, pursuant to which the trial court imposed the challenged penalty, give discretion to the trial court to determine, within specified guide *185 lines, the appropriate amount of the daily fine.”
Carothers v. Capozziello, 574 A.2d 1268 (Conn. 1990).
· cites it 8× “Seeking, inter alia, injunctive relief and civil penalties pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-226, 2 the commissioner alleged: (1) in the first case, that the defendants had (a) violated the terms of a final consent order entered into between herself and the defendants and (b)…”
Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 881 A.2d 937 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 2× “103 -104 (listing factors to be considered in imposing civil penalty pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-226 pertaining to penalty for violation of solid waste management statutes); see also Rocque v.”
State v. Farricielli, 799 A.2d 1121 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 12× “The court also imposed a $1,380,900 civil penalty under General Statutes § 22a-226 for solid waste viola *4 tions and a $955,900 civil penalty under General Statutes § 22a-438 for water pollution violations.”
Rocque v. Farricielli, 848 A.2d 1206 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 2× “103 -104, we set forth additional factors to be considered by a court in assessing civil penalties pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-226, and in Keeney v.”
Carothers v. Connecticut Bldg. Wrecking Co., 561 A.2d 971 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 22a-438, both then and now, provided for forfeiture to the state of a sum not to exceed $10,000 for each violation of the Water Pollution Control Act, the amount to be fixed by the court, and provides that the attorney general institute a civil action to…”
State v. Joseph V. (Conn. 2023).
· cites it 2× “’’ Another example is General Statutes § 22a-226 (a), which uses substantially the same language with respect to civil penalties for violations of solid waste management law.”
State v. Douglas C. (Conn. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Another statute that uses essentially the same language is General Statutes § 22a-226 (a) (govern- ing civil violations of solid waste management law).”
State v. Joseph V. (Conn. 2023).
· cites it 2× “’’ Another example is General Statutes § 22a-226 (a), which uses substantially the same language with respect to civil penalties for violations of solid waste management law.”
State v. Douglas C. (Concurrence) (Conn. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Another statute that uses essentially the same language is General Statutes § 22a-226 (a) (govern- ing civil violations of solid waste management law).”
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.