Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 33 — CORPORATIONS · Chapter 602 — Nonstock Corporations
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-1090 (2025)

Removal of directors by judicial proceeding

✓ 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 superior court for the judicial district where a corporation's principal office or, if none in this state, its registered office is located may remove a director of the corporation from office in a proceeding commenced either by the corporation or by its members holding at least ten per cent of the voting power of any class if the court finds that (1) the director engaged in fraudulent or dishonest conduct or gross abuse of authority or discretion, with respect to the corporation and (2) removal is in the best interest of the corporation.

(b) The court that removes a director may bar the director from serving on the board for a period prescribed by the court.

(c) If members commence a proceeding under subsection (a) of this section, they shall make the corporation a party defendant.

(P.A. 96-256, S. 66, 209.)

History: P.A. 96-256 effective January 1, 1997.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2022 · leading case: Blumenthal v. Barnes, 804 A.2d 152 (Conn. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blumenthal v. Barnes, 804 A.2d 152 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 4× “35 The academy may also seek a court order to remove the defendant as an officer of the nonstock corporation pursuant to General Statutes § 33-1090, 36 or it may institute a private action against the defendant for her alleged wrongdoing.”
Davis v. Prop. Owners Assn. of Moodus Lake Shores, Inc., 214 Conn. App. 165 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 2× “directors of the association and barring them from serving as directors for a period of time prescribed by the court; 8. An injunction against the malicious erection of any structure intended to annoy and injure the plaintiffs in respect to their use and enjoyment of the…”
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.