Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-7 (2026)

Penalty

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Any person who, individually, or as a member of any firm, or as an officer of any corporation, or as an agent of any firm or corporation, violates any provision of section 37-4, 37-5 or 37-6 shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than six months or both.

(1949 Rev., S. 6782.)

Cited. 126 C. 338; 149 C. 12.

Cited. 6 CA 691; 44 CA 439; Id., 471.

Cited. 8 CS 245.

Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 283.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Ferrigno v. Cromwell Dev. Assocs., 708 A.2d 1371 (Conn. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ferrigno v. Cromwell Dev. Assocs., 708 A.2d 1371 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 6× “General Statutes § 37-7 provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person who .”

Haworth v. Dieffenbach, 38 A.3d 1203 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 10× “General Statutes § 37-7 provides in relevant part that `[a]ny person who .”

State v. Bangulescu, 832 A.2d 1187 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 3× “The defendant argues that the court did not comply with Practice Book § 37-7 because (1) the prosecutor read an additional charge from the arrest warrant (attempt to commit larceny), (2) he was not told the specific statutory citation for the charges, (3) the charges were not…”

Ferrigno v. Cromwell Dev. Assocs., 689 A.2d 1150 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 37-7.' 4 The mortgage in the present case would be clearly usurious except that General Statutes § 37-9 (3) expressly provides that the usury statute, § 37-4, shall not apply to “any bona fide mortgage of real property *442 for a sum in excess of five thousand…”

Santoro v. Osman, 174 A.2d 800 (Conn. 1961). · cites it 2× “The mere fact that a type of conduct is prohibited in Connecticut by a statute carrying a substantial criminal penalty (see General Statutes § 37-7) does not establish that such conduct is contrary to a “deep-rooted public policy” in this state.”

Equity Mortg., Inc. v. Niro, 690 A.2d 407 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 37-7 provides in pertinent part: “Any person who .”

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tenn (Conn. 2022). “See Practice Book §§ 37-7 and 39-18. Specifically, Practice Book § 39-18 provides in relevant part that ‘‘[a] plea of nolo contendere shall be in writing, shall be signed by the defendant, and, when accepted by the judicial authority, shall be followed by a finding of guilty.”

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tenn, 342 Conn. 292 (Conn. 2022). “See Practice Book §§ 37-7 and 39-18. Specifically, Practice Book § 39-18 provides in relevant part that ‘‘[a] plea of nolo contendere shall be in writing, shall be signed by the defendant, and, when accepted by the judicial authority, shall be followed by a finding of guilty.”

State v. Walker, 233 Conn. App. 250 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025). “’’ Here, the defendant was not present when Cizik entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of the defendant with respect to the part B information and elected a jury trial thereon.”

State v. One Red M. G. Convertible, 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 282 (Conn. App. Ct. 1970). “It is undisputed that on September 23, 1968, Eric Norman Person, defendant in the present proceedings, was convicted in the Circuit Court in *283 the second circuit of the crime of usury (loan sharking) in violation of § 37-4 of the General Statutes, 1 as a consequence of which…”

Butler v. Comm'r of Corr., 775 A.2d 357 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). “” Practice Book § 37-7. Connecticut courts adopt the principle that “when a defendant has been put to plea on a charge, the failure to put the defendant to plea again on an amended information when the nature of the offense is not changed is not a constitutional error.”

In re Carroll, 236 F. Supp. 112 (D. Conn. 1964). “…§ 49-107 (1958) (since repealed by P.A.133, § 10-102 (1959), effective October 1, 1961) with Conn.Gen. Stats. § 37-7 (1958).”

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.