Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-9 (2026)

Automobile for use of the Governor

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

An automobile shall be provided for the use of the Governor, to be purchased, maintained and operated at the expense of the state from moneys appropriated for expenses of the Governor.

(1949 Rev., S. 81.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Pitchell v. City of Hartford, 722 A.2d 797 (Conn. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pitchell v. City of Hartford, 722 A.2d 797 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 4× “” The Appellate Court in its opinion set forth the following additional relevant facts: “That motion [to withdraw] was accompanied by a certification from an attorney in the law firm [of Halloran & Sage] that Sargis *427 had been notified of the pendency of the motion and of his…”

Manzo-Ill v. Schoonmaker, 204 A.3d 1207 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 7× “The court determined that the defendant's appearance was withdrawn by operation of law pursuant to Practice Book § 3-9 9 following *1214 the appearance *352 filed by successor counsel on March 11, 2010.”

Dills v. Town of Enfield, 557 A.2d 517 (Conn. 1989). “1980) § 3-9, pp. 131-32. Thus, the fact that preparing the construction plans would have cost Dills a great deal of money (more than the deposit he sought to recover) did not excuse him from submitting them as the contract provided.”

State v. Turner, 37 A.3d 183 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “The defendant asserts that although they are neutral on their face, Practice Book §§ 3-9 and 3-10 must be treated as if they create impermissible classifications on the basis of indigency due to their disparate impact on indigent criminal defendants.”

State v. Rosario, 841 A.2d 254 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). “1988) § 3-9, p. 74 n.7. Our Supreme Court does not approve of this court reaching and deciding issues that were not raised or briefed by the parties.”

Sadlowski v. Town of Manchester, 538 A.2d 1052 (Conn. 1988). “” Section 3-9 of the Manchester town charter provides: “petition foe overrule.”

Citicorp Mortg., Inc. v. Weinstein, 727 A.2d 720 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “” The defendants state in their brief that Practice Book § 7X, now § 3-9 (a), indicates that a party is deemed to have withdrawn an appearance “upon failure to file a written objection within ten days after written notice has been given or mailed to such attorney or party that a…”

Fish v. Fish, 881 A.2d 342 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). “Practice Book § 3-9 (c). We conclude that the court acted within its discretion.”

DeCarlo & Doll, Inc. v. Dilozir, 698 A.2d 318 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). “1980) § 3-9, pp. 131-32.” Dills v. Enfield, supra, 717-18 .”

Alldred v. Alldred, 31 A.3d 1185 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 5× “Focusing on the fact that counsel for the plaintiff never filed a timely motion to withdraw from representation of his interests in the underlying litigation, the defendant maintains that, pursuant to Practice Book § 3-9 (c), 5 counsel continued to be of record “for all…”

State v. Orlando (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). “preparing a defense of extreme emo- tional disturbance based on the defendant’s identity theft and voodoo claims; explained the applicable law to him; [had] filed or would file all appropriate motions; made a good faith effort to recover the defendant’s personal belongings from…”

Clark v. Comm'r of Corr., 235 Conn. App. 624 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025). “9 To the extent that the petitioner also claims on appeal that the trial court, Alexander, J.”

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.