Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 23 — PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC SHADE TREES · Chapter 449 — Fire Wardens
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-41 (2026)

Disposal of receipts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
All sums received by the State Treasurer from railroad companies or from any other source, as reimbursement for expenses incurred by the State Forest Fire Warden or his deputies in the performance of their duties, shall be deposited in the General Fund in accordance with the provisions of section 4-32. Expenditures incurred by the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection for the prevention and suppression of forest fires shall be paid with moneys appropriated from the General Fund.

(1949 Rev., S. 3482; June, 1955, S. 1881d; 1961, P.A. 517, S. 23; 1971, P.A. 872, S. 200; P.A. 96-180, S. 90, 166; P.A. 11-80, S. 1.)

History: 1961 act deleted reference to receipt of funds from county treasurers; 1971 act replaced state park and forest commission with environmental protection commissioner; P.A. 96-180 changed “State Fire Warden” to “State Forest Fire Warden”, effective June 3, 1996; 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 18 cases, 1998–2020 · leading case: Lorthe v. Comm'r of Corr., 931 A.2d 348 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lorthe v. Comm'r of Corr., 931 A.2d 348 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “2d 674 (1984) (to prevail on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must show counsel’s performance deficient and deficient performance prejudiced defense), General Statutes § 54-lj 8 and Practice Book §§ 23-41, 9 38-18 through 39-21 and 39-24, that the record is…”
Logan v. Comm'r of Corr., 9 A.3d 776 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “On July 6,2007, D’Amato moved to withdraw from the case pursuant to Practice Book § 23-41.® The petitioner filed an objection on July 17, 2007.”
Oliphant v. Comm'r of Corr., 79 A.3d 77 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 5× “On February 16,2010, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-41, McKay filed a motion for permission to withdraw as counsel and, under seal, an Anders brief.”
Kaddah v. Comm'r of Corr., 153 A.3d 1233 (Conn. 2017). “2d 696 (2007) ; see also Practice Book § 23-41 (governing motions to withdraw by appointed counsel in habeas cases).”
Taylor v. Comm'r of Corr., 40 A.3d 336 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 6× “In this consolidated appeal, the petitioner claims in docket number AC 31835 that the court abused its discretion when it denied his petition for certification to appeal because Practice Book (2009) §§ 23-41 and 23-42 are unconstitutional because they permit the court to dismiss…”
Riddick v. Comm'r of Corr., 19 A.3d 174 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 2× “Levy, to represent him, the petitioner filed an amended petition, alleging that his convictions were obtained in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights to due process and to effective assistance of counsel. Subsequently, after investigating all of the claims…”
Oliphant v. Warden, State Prison, 80 A.3d 597 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 5× “On February 16, 2010, he filed the motion for permission to withdraw as counsel, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-41, which is presently before this court.”
Riddick v. Comm'r of Corr., 966 A.2d 762 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). “On December 10, 2003, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-41, Levy filed a notice of motion for leave to withdraw, a motion for leave to withdraw and a memorandum of law in support of the motion for leave to withdraw.”
Coleman v. Comm'r of Corr., 913 A.2d 477 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “Thereafter, Berry filed a motion to withdraw from the case, pursuant to the provisions of Practice Book § 23-41, 1 on the ground that the petitioner’s claims were frivolous.”
Campbell v. Comm'r of Corr., 31 A.3d 1182 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). “On February 17, 2010, the petitioner’s counsel filed a request for a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioner the full thirty days allotted by the rules of practice to respond to habeas counsel’s motion to withdraw.”
Coleman v. Comm'r of Corr., 87 A.3d 1208 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “2d 493 (1967), and Practice Book § 23-41. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal with respect to tMs count because the claims in tMs count are precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.”
Freeney v. Comm'r of Corr., 721 A.2d 571 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “*382 Practice Book § 23-41, formerly § 529T, provides that “[w]hen counsel has been appointed .”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.