Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 23 — PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC SHADE TREES · Chapter 451 — Public Shade Trees and Tree Protection Examining Board
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 23-61 (2025)

Tree experts to be licensed

✓ 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
Section 23-61 is repealed.

(1949 Rev., S. 3499; 1963, P.A. 527, S. 10; 1967, P.A. 587, S. 7.)

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: Nunno v. Wixner, 778 A.2d 145 (Conn. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nunno v. Wixner, 778 A.2d 145 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 4× “Subsequently, the case was referred to an arbitrator under the court’s mandatory arbitration program pursu *675 ant to § 52-549u and Practice Book § 23-61. 6 After a hearing, the arbitrator issued a decision awarding the plaintiff $21,945.”
Stokes v. Lyddy, 815 A.2d 263 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). “*256 Pursuant to Practice Book § 23-61, the court referred the matter to a court annexed arbitration program.”
Ernst v. Deere & Co., 886 A.2d 845 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). “The plaintiff proceeded in his action against Deere, and the matter was referred to arbitration, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-61. After the arbitrator’s decision was submitted, Deere filed a claim for a trial de novo, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-66.”
Sabatasso v. Hogan, 882 A.2d 719 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “The case was assigned to nonbinding arbitration, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-549U 1 and Practice Book *811 § 23-61, 2 and the arbitrator awarded the plaintiff $31,000 in damages.”
Krausman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 227 A.3d 91 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). “Even assuming without deciding that this fully resolved count one and that the defendant effectively has waived any challenge to the merits of the arbitrator’s decision or its obligation to satisfy the judgment rendered on that count, the court nonetheless has not yet resolved…”
Yaremich v. Lam, 803 A.2d 369 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). “Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-549u and Practice Book § 23-61, the court referred the matter to the court-mandated arbitration program.”
Larmel v. Metro North Commuter R.R. Co., No. AC42647 (Conn. App. Ct. Oct. 6, 2020). “The statutes at issue in Nunno and the present case not only have different purposes but also are textually distinguishable.”
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.