Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 04 — MANAGEMENT OF STATE AGENCIES · Chapter 46 — State Appointive Officers
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-11 (2025)

Suspension of administrative officers

✓ 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
When the Governor has reason to believe that any officer or commissioner of the Executive Department who is appointed or nominated by the Governor, with or without confirmation of the General Assembly or either house thereof, or any duly authorized deputy of such officer, is guilty of misconduct, material neglect of duty or incompetence in the conduct of his office, he shall serve upon such officer, commissioner or deputy a notice of the charges preferred against him, of the time, within ten days of the service of such notice, when such officer, commissioner or deputy will be given a hearing by him on such charges and of the place where such hearing will be held. The Governor may suspend any such officer, commissioner or deputy from office pending his decision on such charges upon including in the notice required herein his order of such suspension.

(1949 Rev., S. 83; 1969, P.A. 481, S. 4.)

History: 1969 act deleted reference to deputy commissioners.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2003–2004 · leading case: State v. Sandoval, 821 A.2d 247 (Conn. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Sandoval, 821 A.2d 247 (Conn. 2003). “§ 4-11; and on the ground that the victim’s proffered testimony would involve collateral matters.”
State v. Hong T., 854 A.2d 827 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “At the beginning of the trial, the defendant moved, pursuant to § 4-11 (4) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence and General Statutes § 54-86f, for permission to admit evidence of the victim’s sexual history with this boyfriend, claiming that such evidence was necessary and…”
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.