Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-30 (2025)
Home workers
✓ 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
Any person, other than a member of the immediate family residing therein, who, or firm, partnership or corporation which, engages in the manufacture of any products, or parts thereof, in any dwelling house, tenement house, rooming house, apartment house or other residential building, which has been licensed in accordance with section 31-29, shall conform in every respect to the provisions of the general statutes governing the registration and operation of manufacturing and mechanical establishments. Any member or members of the immediate family residing in any dwelling house, tenement house, rooming house, apartment house or other residential building, whether licensed for such purpose or not, may use such place of residence for the purpose of manufacturing products, or parts thereof, either on their own behalf, or on behalf of other manufacturing or mechanical establishments located within the state as hereinafter provided. Such home workers shall conform in every respect to the provisions of the general statutes governing the working hours and conditions of women and minors in manufacturing and mechanical establishments, and, in the observance thereof, they shall be subject to inspection under the supervision of said commissioner. Said commissioner shall report to the board of health, humane society or other agency having jurisdiction any condition believed to be unhealthful, insanitary or otherwise prejudicial to the well-being of such home workers, in order that such condition may be investigated and corrected by such agency.
(1949 Rev., S. 3763.)
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases, 1985–2011 · leading case: Hummel v. Marten Transports, Ltd., 923 A.2d 657 (Conn. 2007).
Hummel v. Marten Transports, Ltd., 923 A.2d 657 (Conn. 2007). “This certified appeal raises two principal issues: (1) whether, under the plain meaning rule of recently enacted General Statutes § 1-2z, 2 we are obliged to overrule our precedent importing a final judgment requirement into General Statutes § 31-30 lb, 3 which governs appeals…”
Matey v. Est. of Dember, 774 A.2d 113 (Conn. 2001). “” General Statutes § 31-30 lb provides: “Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Compensation Review Board upon any question or questions of law arising in (he proceedings may appeal the decision of the Compensation Review Board to (he Appellate Court.”
Schiano v. Bliss Exterminating Co., 792 A.2d 835 (Conn. 2002). “The fund appealed from the review board’s decision to the Appellate Court pursuant to General Statutes § 31-30 lb. We then transferred the appeal to this corut pursuant to Practice Book § 65-1 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).”
Metro. Life Ins. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 730 A.2d 51 (Conn. 1999). “282 , the chief justice varied from the usual § 52-265a certification procedure and treated the appellant’s General Statutes § 31-30 lb appeal as a late petition pursuant to § 52-265a because of the particular circumstances of the case.”
Hall v. Gilbert & Bennett Mfg. Co., 695 A.2d 1051 (Conn. 1997). “The fund contended that the absence of a final judgment requirement in the text of § 31-30 lb was consistent with other provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Pizzuto v. Comm'r of Mental Retardation, 927 A.2d 811 (Conn. 2007). “All of the following injuries include the loss of the member or organ and the complete and permanent loss of use of the member or organ referred to: “MEMBER INJURY WEEKS OF COMPENSATION * * * “Back Number of weeks which the proportion of incapacity represents to a maximum of 374…”
Rayhall v. Akim Co., 819 A.2d 803 (Conn. 2003). “Thus, a question of law “arising” in a board proceeding would comprise not only those issues expressly decided by the board on the basis of its jurisdiction, but also those issues that present themselves in the proceeding or become operative as a result of the board’s decision.”
Esposito v. Simkins Indus., Inc., 943 A.2d 456 (Conn. 2008). “2d 1051 (1997) (concluding that legislature’s failure to amend General Statutes § 31-30 lb to address this court’s interpretation of that statute to impose final judgment predicate to workers’ compensation appeal despite revisiting that statute “provides adequate support for our…”
Civardi v. City of Norwich, 649 A.2d 523 (Conn. 1994). “The compensation review board shall hear the appeal on the record of the hearing before the commissioner, provided, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the board that additional evidence or testimony is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the…”
Dowling v. Slotnik, 712 A.2d 396 (Conn. 1998). “181, 184-85 , 588 A.2d 194 (1991). Practice Book § 4165, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.”
Dechio v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 10 A.3d 20 (Conn. 2010). “Hummel, which temporarily reaffirmed our jurisprudence imposing a final judgment requirement with respect to appeals from the board to the Appellate Court pursuant to General Statutes § 31-30 lb, notwithstanding the lack of a final judgment requirement in *400 the text of that…”
State v. Salmon, 735 A.2d 333 (Conn. 1999). “Section 31-30 lb provides in relevant part: “Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Compensation Review Board upon any question or questions of law arising in the proceedings may appeal the decision .”
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.