(a) The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may accept gifts, donations or contributions of land suitable for forestry or park purposes and enter into cooperative agreements with the federal government, its agents or departments, for acquiring, by lease, purchase or otherwise, such lands as in the judgment of said commissioner are desirable for state forests or state parks and at such price as may be mutually agreed upon. Said commissioner may cooperate with the federal government, its agents or departments in working out a mutually satisfactory plan defining forest areas within the state which may be most effectively and economically administered by the state.
(b) When lands are acquired or leased under this section, said commissioner is authorized to make expenditures, from any funds not designated for any other purpose, for their protection from fire and for the management, development and utilization of such areas; to sell or otherwise dispose of products from such lands; and to make such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
(c) All receipts derived from lands to be acquired from the federal government under the provisions of this section shall be deposited in the General Fund as provided in section 23-15.
(d) Said commissioner may prepare standards of forest administration development and management to insure timber production and watershed protection, and may furnish the federal government or any of its departments with such annual, periodic or special reports as may be required respecting the operations of the state under any cooperative agreement.
(1949 Rev., S. 3471; March, 1958, P.A. 27, S. 13; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 196; P.A. 11-80, S. 1.)
History: 1971 act replaced references to commission on forests and wild life with references to environmental protection commissioner and transferred power to make expenditures from state forester to the commissioner in Subsec. (b); pursuant to P.A. 11-80, “Commissioner of Environmental Protection” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection” in Subsec. (a), effective July 1, 2011.
Notes of Decisions
Anderson v. Comm'r of Corr., 971 A.2d 766 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 16× “The court concluded that (1) the petitioner’s reply to the respondent’s return did not comply with Practice Book § 23-31 (c), 3 and, thus, he was procedurally defaulted from asserting his claims of judicial *784 and prosecutorial misconduct set forth in counts one through…”
Johnson v. Comm'r of Corr., 941 A.2d 248 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 3× “With respect to the *563 petitioner’s inadequate investigation claim, the habeas court determined, pursuant to the standard applied in considering allegations of ineffective assistance on their merits, that the claim was unsupported by the evidence.”
Saunders v. Comm'r of Corr., 194 Conn. App. 473 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 12× “The petitioner thereafter filed a reply to the respondent’s return, pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 23-31 [c]), in which he asserted, inter alia, that he could demonstrate cause to excuse the procedural defaults on the basis of the allegations in his habeas…”
Saunders v. Comm'r of Corr., 343 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2022).
· cites it 4× “The petitioner must then file a reply to ‘‘allege any facts and assert any cause and prejudice claimed to permit review of any issue despite any claimed proce- dural default.”
Taylor v. Comm'r of Corr., 936 A.2d 611 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 3× “” In her return to the petition filed pursuant to Practice Book § 23-30, 5 the respondent claimed that the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner had procedurally defaulted by having failed to raise his claim either via a motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to…”
Crawford v. Comm'r of Corr., 982 A.2d 620 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 2× “In accordance with Practice Book § 23-31, 12 the petitioner’s reply fails to allege adequate ‘cause’ for the default and ‘prejudice’ sufficient to excuse his default and permit review of these claims for the first time in this habeas corpus proceeding.”
Carpenter v. Comm'r of Corr., 878 A.2d 1088 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 4× “” At a June 27, 2002 pretrial conference ordered by the habeas court, the petitioner filed his reply pursuant to Practice Book § 23-31. 2 He alleged in the reply that the issues raised in the petition had not been litigated in State v.”
Orcutt v. Comm'r of Corr., 937 A.2d 656 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 2× “In accordance with Practice Book *734 § 23-31, 16 the petitioner filed a reply to the return.”
Moody v. Comm'r of Corr., 14 A.3d 408 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 3× “Practice Book § 23-31 (a) requires a petitioner to file a reply “[i]f the return alleges any defense or claim that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, and such allegations are not put in dispute by the petition .”
Crocker v. Comm'r of Corr., 10 A.3d 1079 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 2× “19 The habeas court concluded that the petitioner was procedurally defaulted from pursuing this claim for having failed to file the requisite return as provided by Practice Book § 23-31. See Practice Book § 23-31. Relying on Cobham v.”
Arroyo v. Comm'r of Corr., 160 A.3d 425 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “'If the return alleges any defense or claim that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, and such allegations are not put in dispute by the petition, the petitioner shall file a reply.”
Delgado v. Comm'r of Corr., 970 A.2d 792 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 5× “At the hearing on the respondent’s motion to dismiss, the habeas court noted the petitioner’s failure to contest the respondent’s allegations, either by filing a pleading pursuant to Practice Book § 23-31 3 or in any other way. The court stated: “I have the defense of procedural…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-31(a) — 2 cases
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-31(c) — 3 cases
Arroyo v. Comm'r of Corr., 160 A.3d 425 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“'If the return alleges any defense or claim that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, and such allegations are not put in dispute by the petition, the petitioner shall file a reply.”
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.