Any person convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter for which a specified penalty is not imposed, shall, for each offense, be subject to any penalty set forth in section
30-55.
(1949 Rev., S. 4305; P.A. 81-294, S. 18, 22; P.A. 21-37, S. 96.)
History: P.A. 81-294 made no substantive change; P.A. 21-37 replaced provision re fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment of not more than 1 year or both with reference to any penalty in Sec. 30-55, effective July 1, 2021.
Cited. 118 C. 268. Statute, read together with Sec. 30-48, provides a penalty against a stockholder in a brewing company for violation of “tied house” provision. 128 C. 164. Cited. 130 C. 374; 152 C. 470; 153 C. 67; 160 C. 4; 200 C. 400.
Cited. 5 CS 418; 23 CS 474.
Violation of Sec. 30-77 is a misdemeanor. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 125; 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 373.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases, 1962–2007 · leading case:
Slicer v. Quigley, 429 A.2d 855 (Conn. 1980).
Slicer v. Quigley, 429 A.2d 855 (Conn. 1980).
· cites it 12× “Any permittee who, by himself, his servant or agent, sells or delivers alcoholic liquor to any minor, or to any intoxicated person, or to any habitual drunkard, knowing him to be such an habitual drunkard, and any person, except the parent or guardian of a minor, who delivers or…”
Craig v. Driscoll, 781 A.2d 440 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 3× “General Statutes § 30-113 provides: “Any person convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter for which a specified penalty is not imposed, shall, for each offense, be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both.”
Boehm v. Kish, 517 A.2d 624 (Conn. 1986).
“himself, his servant or agent, sells or delivers alcoholic liquor to any minor, or to any intoxicated person, or to any habitual drunkard, knowing him to be such an habitual drunkard, and any person, except the parent or guardian of a minor, who delivers or gives any such…”
State v. Jason B., 729 A.2d 760 (Conn. 1999).
“shall be subject to the penalties of section 30-113. Any person who delivers or gives any such liquors to such minor, except on the order of a practicing physician, shall be fined not more than one thousand five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than eighteen months, or…”
Hughes v. Bemer, 510 A.2d 992 (Conn. 1986).
“himself, his servant or agent, sells or delivers alcoholic liquor to any minor, or to any intoxicated person, or to any habitual drunkard, knowing him to be such an habitual drunkard, and any person, except the parent or guardian of a minor, who delivers or gives any such…”
Hayes v. Caspers, Ltd., 881 A.2d 428 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
“shall be subject to the penalties of section 30-113. . . .” 7 In response to Craig v.”
Hing Wan Wong v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 273 A.2d 709 (Conn. 1970).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 30-113. The contents of the glass were analyzed by the laboratory division of the state health department and were certified by both the chief of the toxicological services section and another toxicologist as containing 19.”
State v. Springmann, 794 A.2d 1071 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
“to 1995) § 30-86 provides in relevant part: “Any permittee, who, by himself, his servant or agent, sells or delivers alcoholic liquorto any minor, orto any intoxicated person, orto any habitual drunkard, knowing him to be such an habitual drunkard, shall be subject to the…”
Heating Acceptance Corp. v. Patterson, 208 A.2d 341 (Conn. 1965).
“While the precise statutes violated were not given, both crimes appear to be violations of § 30-77 of the General Statutes and punishable under § 30-113 by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment for not more than one year or both.”
Vitale v. Kowal, 923 A.2d 778 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
“shall be subject to the penalties of section 30-113. ...” General Statutes (Rev.”
Craig v. Driscoll, 813 A.2d 1003 (Conn. 2003).
“See General Statutes § 30-86, which provides in relevant part: “Any permittee or any servant or agent of a permittee who sells or delivers alcoholic liquor to any minor, or to any intoxicated person, or to any habitual drunkard, knowing the person to be such an habitual…”
State v. Spellman, 212 A.2d 413 (Conn. 1965).
“General Statutes § 30-113, 1-1. The defendant claims that the statute is unconstitutional because of vagueness and because it seeks to penalize “a state of mind”.”
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.