Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 23 — PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC SHADE TREES · Chapter 448 — Forests and Wildlife
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-29 (2026)

Powers

✓ 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 may, in the name and for the use of the state, accept any gift or any interest in real or personal property to be used by the department for any park or forest purpose, for the purpose of propagation and protection of wildlife, for public shooting grounds or for recreation, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the donor and the commissioner. Said commissioner may purchase or lease real or personal property to be used for any of said purposes, provided said commissioner shall purchase no real estate at a cost in excess of ten dollars per acre without the approval of the Governor. The commissioner may provide for the propagation and preservation of wildlife in any state park or forest.

(1949 Rev., S. 3469; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 194.)

History: 1971 act replaced references to commission on forests and wild life with references to environmental protection commissioner and substituted reference to environmental protection department for reference to state park and forest commission, state board of fisheries and game and commission on forests and wild life as recipient of real or personal property.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 155 cases (52 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Boria v. Comm'r of Corr., 199 A.3d 1127 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Boria v. Comm'r of Corr., 199 A.3d 1127 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 83× “The record further reflects that, notwithstanding the docketing of the petition and the granting of the petitioner’s request for counsel, the court, sua sponte, dismissed the petition pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 without having actually appointed counsel and without having…”
Brown v. Comm'r of Corr., 345 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 44× “’’ Pursuant further to the rules of practice (§ 23-29 (3)), ‘‘[t]he judicial authority may, at any time, upon its own motion .”
Zollo v. Comm'r of Corr., 35 A.3d 337 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 49× “The word commenced does not appear in Practice Book § 23-29. Courts "are constrained to read a statute as written .”
Gilchrist v. Comm'r of Corr., 334 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 20× “’’ Pursuant further to the rules of practice (§ 23-29), ‘‘[t]he judicial authority may, at any time, upon its own motion or upon motion of the respondent, dismiss the petition .”
Cookish v. Comm'r of Corr., 337 Conn. 348 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 20× “The court determined that, pursuant to the rules of practice (§ 23-29), it lacked jurisdiction because it was apparent, on the face of the petition, that the petitioner was not in custody for the conviction being challenged.”
Hodge v. Comm'r of Corr., 216 Conn. App. 616 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 20× “The habeas court, sua sponte and without providing the petitioner with prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, dismissed the petitioner’s amended peti- tion pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 23-29), concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over that petition…”
Holliday v. Comm'r of Corr., 194 A.3d 867 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 12× “On March 29, 2016, the habeas court dismissed the petition on its own motion pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (1) for lack of jurisdiction. The habeas court's decision did not analyze the petitioner's due process and equal protection arguments, but, citing this court's opinion…”
Kearney v. Comm'r of Corr., 965 A.2d 608 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 13× “5 On January 6, 2006, the respondent, the commissioner of correction, filed a motion to dismiss count one of the second petition pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (3) as a successive petition and an abuse of the writ.”
Lebron v. Comm'r of Corr., 175 A.3d 46 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 11× “With respect to count three, the respondent raised the defenses of improper successive petition; see Practice Book § 23-29 (3) ; and waiver on the basis of the petitioner's guilty plea.”
Anderson v. Comm'r of Corr., 971 A.2d 766 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 8× “” The respondent further noted that the petitioner’s ineffectiveness claims violated Practice Book § 23-29 (3) 6 because they presented the same grounds as his previously denied petitions and failed to state new facts or to proffer new evidence not reasonably available at the…”
Howard v. Comm'r of Corr., 217 Conn. App. 119 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 19× “The habeas court, on its own motion and without providing the petitioner with prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, dismissed the petitioner’s petition pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 23-29), finding that the court lacked jurisdiction because the petition failed to…”
Kaddah v. Comm'r of Corr., 7 A.3d 911 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 8× “n to appeal because it is debatable among jurists of reason whether: (1) the present petition presented the same grounds and request for relief as a prior petition; and (2) the state and federal constitutional guarantees of due process afford the petitioner a right to notice and…”
Show all 155 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-29(1) — 3 cases
In re Pentland, 169 A.3d 851 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
Jobe v. Comm'r of Corr., 186 A.3d 1219 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
Vitale v. Comm'r of Corr., 178 A.3d 418 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-29(2) — 3 cases
Perez v. Comm'r of Corr., 163 A.3d 597 (Conn. 2017).
Zollo v. Comm'r of Corr., 35 A.3d 337 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). “The word commenced does not appear in Practice Book § 23-29. Courts "are constrained to read a statute as written .”
Johnson v. Comm'r of Corr., 145 A.3d 416 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-29(3) — 3 cases
Zollo v. Comm'r of Corr., 35 A.3d 337 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). “The word commenced does not appear in Practice Book § 23-29. Courts "are constrained to read a statute as written .”
Johnson v. Comm'r of Corr., 145 A.3d 416 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
Toccaline v. Comm'r of Corr., 172 A.3d 821 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
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.