Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 35 — · Chapter 624 — Connecticut Antitrust Act

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-32

Attorney General to bring actions in the name of state or as parens patriae

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Attorney General, in the name of the state and on behalf of the people of the state, shall enforce the provisions of this chapter. He shall investigate suspected violations and institute proceedings, for any violation of the provisions of this chapter. Such proceedings may pray that such violation be temporarily or permanently enjoined, or otherwise prohibited.

(b) The Attorney General may also, in his discretion, intervene and appear in any proceeding pending before any court, agency, board, or commission in this state in which matters related to this chapter are in issue.

(c) The Attorney General may also, in enforcing the provisions of this chapter, bring an action in the name of the state as (1) parens patriae for persons residing in the state with respect to damages sustained by such persons, or, if the court finds in its discretion that the interests of justice so require, as a representative of a class or classes consisting of persons residing in the state who have been damaged; or (2) parens patriae with respect to damages to the general economy of the state or any political subdivision thereof; provided that such damages shall not be duplicative of those recoverable under subdivision (1) of this subsection.

(d) The Attorney General may also bring a civil action in the name of the state in the district courts of the United States under the federal antitrust laws to recover damages and secure such other relief as provided for in such laws as (1) parens patriae for persons residing in the state with respect to damages sustained by such persons, or, if the court finds in its discretion that the interests of justice so require, as a representative of a class or classes consisting of persons residing in the state who have been damaged; or (2) parens patriae with respect to damages to the general economy of the state or any political subdivision thereof; provided that such damages shall not be duplicative of those recoverable under subdivision (1) of this subsection.

(1971, P.A. 608, S. 9; P.A. 75-508, S. 1, 7; 75-567, S. 5, 80; P.A. 76-218.)

History: P.A. 75-508 and P.A. 75-567 substituted “chapter” for “part”, specified that attorney general acts “in the name of the state and on behalf of the people of the state”, specified that proceedings “may pray that such violation be temporarily or permanently enjoined, or otherwise prohibited” and added Subsec. (b); P.A. 76-218 added Subsecs. (c) and (d).

Cited. 169 C. 344; 177 C. 218; 179 C. 324; 184 C. 285; 212 C. 661.

Subsec. (c):

Subdiv. (2) affords the state standing to pursue a parens patriae claim for damages to its general economy caused by violations of the Connecticut Antitrust Act. 286 C. 454.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc. (2008) conn · cites it 39× “The sole issue in this interlocutory public interest appeal is whether General Statutes § 35-32 (c) (2) 1 gives the plaintiff, the state of Connecticut *457 (state), standing to pursue a parens patriae claim for damages to its general economy caused by violations of the…”
Bysiewicz v. Dinardo (2010) conn · cites it 4× “, General Statutes § 17b-301 (prosecution of fraud in public medical assistance programs); General Statutes § 35-32 (enforcement of antitrust laws).”
State of Conn. v. Levi Strauss & Co. (1979) ctd · cites it 10× “If Connecticut's parens patriae statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-32, were construed to be the same as the federal provision, Pub.”
Lieberman v. Reliable Refuse Co. (1989) conn · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 35-32. 3 The act provides that the attorney general “shall investigate suspected violations and institute proceedings, for any violation of the provisions of” the act.”
Shea v. First Federal Savings & Loan Assn. of New Haven (1981) conn · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 35-32. Following a lengthy trial, the Superior Court concluded that federal law excluded this action from a state court’s jurisdiction because the defendant is a federally chartered savings and loan association.”
State v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2016) wash “§ 6-4-111 (3)(a); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-32 ; Del. Code Ann.”
Elida, Inc. v. Harmor Realty Corp. (1979) conn · cites it 2× “Pursuant to General Statutes §35-32 (b), the state of Connecticut was permitted to intervene as a party to this action with the status of defendantintervenor.”
Connecticut v. Levi Strauss & Co. (1979) ctd · cites it 10× “If Connecticut’s parens patriae statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-32, were construed to be the same as the federal provision, Pub.”
Connecticut v. MOODY'S CORPORATION (2009) ctd · cites it 6× “July 1, 1998), the Labor Commissioner sought double damages, a reasonable attorney’s fee, costs, and interest in connection with the defendant’s alleged failure to pay wages to one Connecticut citizen.”
Philip Morris Inc. v. Blumenthal (1996) ctd · cites it 2× “§ 42-110m(a) (Commissioner of Consumer Protection can ask Attorney General to sue in name of the state under CUTPA); C.G.S. § 35-32(a) (“The attorney general, in the name of the state and on behalf of the people of the state, shall enforce [the Connecticut Antitrust Act]”).”
Connecticut v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (2025) ctd · cites it 4× “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-32 (c). First, the Defendants argue that Connecticut may not seek damages as parens patriae on behalf of both the state and its people because those damages would be duplicative.”
Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (2024) ctd “§ 35-32 (c)(2) because those damages are “duplicative of” parens patriae claims on behalf of state citizens.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-32(a) — 4 cases
State of Conn. v. Levi Strauss & Co. (1979) ctd “If Connecticut's parens patriae statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-32, were construed to be the same as the federal provision, Pub.”
Connecticut v. MOODY'S CORPORATION (2009) ctd “July 1, 1998), the Labor Commissioner sought double damages, a reasonable attorney’s fee, costs, and interest in connection with the defendant’s alleged failure to pay wages to one Connecticut citizen.”
Connecticut v. Levi Strauss & Co. (1979) ctd “If Connecticut’s parens patriae statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-32, were construed to be the same as the federal provision, Pub.”
Philip Morris Inc. v. Blumenthal (1996) ctd “§ 42-110m(a) (Commissioner of Consumer Protection can ask Attorney General to sue in name of the state under CUTPA); C.G.S. § 35-32(a) (“The attorney general, in the name of the state and on behalf of the people of the state, shall enforce [the Connecticut Antitrust Act]”).”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-32(c) — 3 cases
State of Conn. v. Levi Strauss & Co. (1979) ctd “If Connecticut's parens patriae statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-32, were construed to be the same as the federal provision, Pub.”
Connecticut v. MOODY'S CORPORATION (2009) ctd “July 1, 1998), the Labor Commissioner sought double damages, a reasonable attorney’s fee, costs, and interest in connection with the defendant’s alleged failure to pay wages to one Connecticut citizen.”
Connecticut v. Levi Strauss & Co. (1979) ctd “If Connecticut’s parens patriae statute, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 35-32, were construed to be the same as the federal provision, Pub.”
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.