Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-129b (2025)

Suppression of criminally operated businesses other than corporations

✓ 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
(a) The Attorney General is authorized to institute civil proceedings in the Superior Court to enjoin the operation of any business other than a corporation, including a partnership, limited partnership, unincorporated association, joint venture or sole proprietorship, when: (1) Any person in control of any such business, who may be a partner in a partnership, a participant in a joint venture, the owner of a sole proprietorship, an employee or agent of any such business, or a person who, in fact, exercises control over the operations of any such business, has, in conducting its business affairs, purposely engaged in a persistent course of gambling, unlawful traffic in narcotics, extortion, embezzlement, intimidation, bribery, prostitution, or other such illegal conduct with the intent to compel or induce other persons, firms or corporations to deal with such business or engage in any such illegal conduct, and (2) for the prevention of future illegal conduct of the same character, the public interest requires the operation of the business to be enjoined.

(b) The proceedings authorized by subsection (a) of this section may be instituted against a business other than a corporation in the superior court for any judicial district in which it is doing business and the proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with rules of civil procedure and the applicable rules of court.

(1971, P.A. 308, S. 2, 3 (b); P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 127.)

History: P.A. 78-280 deleted reference to county.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2002–2002 · leading case: Blumenthal v. Barnes, 804 A.2d 152 (Conn. 2002).
Blumenthal v. Barnes, 804 A.2d 152 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 2× “ction to protect interstate watercourses); General Statutes § 3-127 (with approval of governor, and in name of state, attorney general authorized to negotiate with other states concerning use, allocation or diversion of interstate watercourses); General Statutes § 3-129a…”
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.