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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-42 (2026)

Liability of railroads for damages caused by sparks

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any railroad company which, through act of its employees or agents, by sparks from its locomotives or otherwise, sets fire to trees, brush or grass on lands outside the right-of-way of such company, shall be liable to the state for the lawful expenses incurred by the State Forest Fire Warden in extinguishing such fire. The bill for any such fire shall be submitted by the warden or fire chief in charge to the State Forest Fire Warden. If approved by the State Forest Fire Warden, it shall be ordered paid by the State Comptroller. A statement of all such bills paid by the state during the previous six months shall be submitted on or before the tenth day of December and the tenth day of June in each year by the State Forest Fire Warden to the railroad company liable under the provisions of this section. Such statement shall be accompanied by copies of all bills on which the claim is based and shall be paid by such railroad company to the State Treasurer. Each section foreperson employed by a railroad company, upon the discovery of any fire in the section under the jurisdiction of the foreperson, for which such company is liable under the provisions of this section, shall summon necessary assistance, proceed to the fire and extinguish it, and shall give such assistance to state forest fire control personnel as may, from time to time, be requested by such personnel.

(1949 Rev., S. 3483; 1949, S. 1883d; P.A. 01-150, S. 12.)

History: P.A. 01-150 made technical changes including changes for purposes of gender neutrality.

See Sec. 13b-360 et seq. re fires caused by railway engines.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1998–2018 · 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 8× “Riddick concerned the application of Practice Book (2009) § 23-42 (a), which provided in relevant part: ‘‘If the judicial authority finds that the case is wholly without merit, it shall allow counsel to withdraw and shall consider whether the petition shall be dismissed or…”
Riddick v. Comm'r of Corr., 966 A.2d 762 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 8× “The court found that both the due process claim and the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim were frivolous.”
Lorthe v. Comm'r of Corr., 931 A.2d 348 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “” The habeas court sua sponte dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Practice Book § 23-42. 23 The petitioner, pro se, timely filed an appeal in this court.”
Taylor v. Comm'r of Corr., 40 A.3d 336 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 6× “At the time of the court’s judgment dismissing the petitioner’s consolidated petition, Practice Book (2009) § 23-42 (a) provided in relevant part: “If the judicial *411 authority finds that the case is wholly without merit, it shall allow counsel to withdraw and shall consider…”
Riddick v. Comm'r of Corr., 19 A.3d 174 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 2× “On February 24,2004, the habeas court granted Levy’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to Practice Book (2003) § 23-42. 3 In its memo *54 randum of decision, the court stated that it had reviewed the entire file, including Levy’s memorandum of law and…”
Logan v. Comm'r of Corr., 9 A.3d 776 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). “” 4 Practice Book § 23-42 (a) provides: “The presiding judge shall fully examine the memoranda of law filed by counsel and the petitioner, together with any relevant portions of the records of prior trial court, appellate and *748 postconviction proceedings.”
Oliphant v. Comm'r of Corr., 79 A.3d 77 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “The court also stated that “[substitute counsel will not be appointed.”
Coleman v. Comm'r of Corr., 913 A.2d 477 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “The petitioner filed an amended petition, and the case proceeded to a hearing on the merits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the habeas court, White, J.”
Oliphant v. Warden, State Prison, 80 A.3d 597 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011). “A Larceny Conviction In his pro se petitions, the petitioner claims that his conviction of larceny in the first degree is illegal because (1) the charge was fabricated in retaliation for civil lawsuits that he filed in December, 1994, (2) the conviction violates the double…”
Freeney v. Comm'r of Corr., 721 A.2d 571 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). “” Practice Book § 23-42, formerly § 529U, further provides that “[i]f the judicial authority finds that the case is wholly without merit, it shall allow counsel to withdraw and shall consider whether the petition shall be dismissed or allowed to proceed, with the petitioner pro…”
Taylor v. Comm'r of Corr. (Conn. 2014). · cites it 3× “On December 2, 2009, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the consolidated habeas petitions [pursuant to Practice Book (2009) § 23-42].5 The court [thereafter] denied the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal.”
Oliphant v. Comm'r of Corr., 127 A.3d 1001 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). “] Santos ruled that ‘[i]t seems appropriate for the court to dismiss this [petition] as either heard, res judicata or on these various other grounds that were stated not only in the return of the [respondent], but also in the pretrial brief.”
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.