Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-40 (2025)
Patrol personnel
✓ 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 State Forest Fire Warden may appoint patrol personnel, who shall receive compensation for the time actually employed, and may establish and equip fire lookout stations and furnish necessary equipment for such patrol personnel. Any patrol personnel so appointed for such purpose shall have authority to render bills for such expenses as provided in section 23-39.
(1949 Rev., S. 3480; 1967, P.A. 338, S. 1; P.A. 00-99, S. 68, 154; P.A. 01-150, S. 11; P.A. 19-37, S. 3.)
History: 1967 act deleted provision authorizing patrolmen to collect expenses incurred in extinguishing fires on state's behalf; P.A. 00-99 deleted reference to powers of deputy sheriff, effective December 1, 2000; P.A. 01-150 deleted reference to the arrest powers of patrol personnel and made technical changes for purposes of gender neutrality; P.A. 19-37 deleted provision re authority to summon assistance, effective July 1, 2019.
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Boria v. Comm'r of Corr., 199 A.3d 1127 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
Boria v. Comm'r of Corr., 199 A.3d 1127 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). “…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. Understanding the import of…”
Taylor v. Comm'r of Corr., 11 A.3d 160 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). “The petitioner claims that the court improperly denied his motion to open and to vacate the judgment of dismissal rendered by the habeas court on the ground that neither he nor his attorney appeared for trial and that the court improperly dismissed his claims without affording…”
Hickey v. Comm'r of Corr., 842 A.2d 606 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). “The petitioner appealed, claiming that it was improper for the court (1) to dismiss his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (1) and (4), 1 and (2) to conduct a hearing on the state’s motion to dismiss his habeas petition in his absence in…”
Holliday v. Comm'r of Corr., 194 A.3d 867 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). “" Practice Book § 23-40. However, Practice Book § 23-40 speaks only to the petitioner's right to be present at an evidentiary hearing when such a hearing is held.”
Saunders v. Comm'r of Corr., 272 A.3d 169 (Conn. 2022). “4 Alternatively, the habeas court may conduct a trial, an evidentiary hearing, or hear argument on a dispositive question of law.”
Brown v. Comm'r of Corr., 282 A.3d 959 (Conn. 2022). “10 Although Practice Book § 23-40 (a) affords a habeas petitioner the right to be present at ‘‘any evidentiary hearing and at any hearing or oral argument on a question of law which may be dispositive of the case,’’ this rule speaks to when a petitioner’s presence is necessary…”
Saksena v. Comm'r of Corr., 76 A.3d 192 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). “The petitioner also claims that the habeas court erred when it proceeded to trial without him present in contravention of his due process rights guaranteed by the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut…”
Carpenter v. Comm'r of Corr., 840 A.2d 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). “2d 340 (1994), (2) the dismissal without oral argument violated Practice Book § 23-40 2 (a) and General Statutes § 52-470 (a), (3) the procedure followed by the habeas court deprived him of due process of law, and (4) even if the habeas court had provided appropriate notice and…”
Nonhuman Rights Proj., Inc. v. R.W. Commerford & Sons, Inc., 192 Conn. App. 36 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). “5 I The petitioner first claims that the court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner did not have standing to bring the petition on behalf of the elephants.”
Boria v. Comm'r of Corr., No. AC39715 (Conn. App. Ct. Dec. 4, 2018). “itioner could not prevail on his claim that the habeas court improp- erly dismissed the portion of his third habeas petition alleging an ex post facto violation regarding statutory amendments to the risk reduc- tion earned credit program: the petitioner’s claim that the habeas…”
Anderson v. Comm'r of Corr., 119 A.3d 1237 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). “dice because (1) an order that the petitioner had violated, which precipitated the court’s dismissal of his amended peti- tion with prejudice, was not reasonably clear; (2) the court’s dismissal of his amended petition with prejudice was not proportionate to the petitioner’s…”
State v. Douglas C., No. SC20456 (Conn. Jan. 10, 2023). “Instead, in my view, § 23-34 introduces the subsequent sections, which deal specifically with the procedural aspects of the habeas action: the schedule for filing pleadings; Practice Book § 23-35; summary judgment; Practice Book § 23- 37;2 discovery; Practice Book § 23-38;…”
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.