Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 23 — PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC SHADE TREES · Chapter 447 — State Parks and Forests
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-24 (2025)

Establishment of boundaries

✓ 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
The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may establish the boundaries of any state park, state forest or other property under his jurisdiction by agreement with owners of adjoining property and may, with the approval of the Governor, exchange land with such property owners and execute deeds in the name of the state for the purpose of establishing such boundaries.

(1949 Rev., S. 3452; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 187; P.A. 11-80, S. 1.)

History: 1971 act replaced state park and forest commission with commissioner of environmental protection; pursuant to P.A. 11-80, “Commissioner of Environmental Protection” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection”, effective July 1, 2011.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Gilchrist v. Comm'r of Corr., 223 A.3d 368 (Conn. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gilchrist v. Comm'r of Corr., 223 A.3d 368 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 32× “Syllabus Pursuant to the rules of practice (§ 23-24), once a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed in the Superior Court, ‘‘[t]he judicial authority shall promptly review [the] petition .”
Boria v. Comm'r of Corr., 199 A.3d 1127 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 34× “…merits. At the same time, however, three new pertinent sections, Practice Book (1996) §§ 529C, 529H, and 529S (now §§ 23-24, 23-29, and § 23-40, respectively), were adopted, which provide the court with alternative vehicles for summary disposition of habeas matters.…”
Green v. Comm'r of Corr., 194 A.3d 857 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 19× “The petitioner further alleged that he continues to be in compliance with the aforementioned "agreement" and, despite the change in policy, should therefore "be grandfathered [in] to receive five days RREC per month, pursuant to .”
Brown v. Comm'r of Corr., 282 A.3d 959 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 23× “Syllabus Pursuant to the rules of practice (§ 23-24), once a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed in the Superior Court, ‘‘[t]he judicial authority shall promptly review [the] petition .”
Whistnant v. Comm'r of Corr., 236 A.3d 276 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 13× “The habeas court rendered judgment declining to issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 23-24 (a) (1)) on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.”
Johnson v. Comm'r of Corr., 264 A.3d 121 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 24× “The habeas court rendered judgment declining to issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 23-24 (a) (1)) on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.”
Stephenson v. Comm'r of Corr., 248 A.3d 34 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 14× “The habeas court issued an order declining to issue the writ of habeas corpus because, pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 23-24 (a)), the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the petition did not present a claim on which the habeas court could grant relief.”
Cookish v. Comm'r of Corr., 253 A.3d 467 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 13× “Subsequently, the habeas court, in connection with its preliminary consideration of the writ under the rules of practice (§ 23-24), dismissed, sua sponte, the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and ordered the petition returned to the petitioner.”
Hodge v. Comm'r of Corr., 285 A.3d 1194 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 6× “In Brown, our Supreme Court explained that ‘‘Gilchrist firmly established that . . . § 23-24 acts as a gatekeeping mechanism that allows a habeas court to review and dispose of a clearly defective petition by simply providing the petitioner with notice of its decision to decline…”
Stephen S. v. Comm'r of Corr., 199 Conn. App. 230 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 12× “s on the ground that the petitioner’s habeas petition was wholly frivolous on its face; the petition alleged cognizable claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prior habeas counsel, and a claim of actual innocence that had not been pleaded in previous petitions,…”
Howard v. Comm'r of Corr., 287 A.3d 602 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 8× “Commissioner of Correction, supra, 43 .’’ The parties have complied with our supplemental brief- ing order.”
Coleman v. Comm'r of Corr., 958 A.2d 790 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “Practice Book § 23-24 (a) (3).” 1 Following the court’s refusal to issue the writ, the petitioner timely filed a petition for certification to appeal from the court’s decision.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-24(a): 1 case
Vitale v. Comm'r of Corr., 178 A.3d 418 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-24(a)(1): 2 cases
Vitale v. Comm'r of Corr., 178 A.3d 418 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
Henderson v. Mulligan, No. 3:18-cv-01412 (D. Conn. Sept. 3, 2023).
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.