Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-195 (2026)

Petition to court for failure to disclose

✓ current as of May 2026

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

If disclosure of personal data is refused by an agency under section 4-194, any person aggrieved thereby may, within thirty days of such refusal, petition the superior court for the judicial district in which he resides for an order requiring the agency to disclose the personal data. Such a proceeding shall be privileged with respect to assignment for trial. The court, after hearing and an in camera review of the personal data in question, shall issue the order requested unless it determines that such disclosure would be detrimental to the person or is otherwise prohibited by law.

(P.A. 76-421, S. 6, 9; P.A. 77-431, S. 5, 6; 77-452, S. 47, 72; P.A. 82-472, S. 8, 183.)

History: P.A. 77-431 changed effective date of section from July 1, 1977, to January 1, 1978; P.A. 77-452 replaced court of common pleas with superior court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 82-472 deleted obsolete reference to county as venue for superior court.

Proceeding under section not subject to restrictions imposed by Sec. 51-197b. 186 C. 153.

Cited. 30 CA 794.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1982–1993 · leading case: Steadwell v. Warden, Connecticut Corr. Inst., Somers, 439 A.2d 1078 (Conn. 1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Steadwell v. Warden, Connecticut Corr. Inst., Somers, 439 A.2d 1078 (Conn. 1982). · cites it 22× “[2] Upon this refusal to disclose the plaintiff filed with the *155 trial court a timely petition for disclosure of personal data pursuant to General Statutes § 4-195. [3] After a hearing the trial court denied the plaintiff's petition for disclosure, [4] ruling that it is…”

Kagan v. Ginsberg, 622 A.2d 1030 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 5× “ial court based its dismissal of the action on its conclusion that the plaintiff had no standing to bring the action because the plaintiff had “failed to allege in her pleadings that a medical doctor has reviewed her file and recommended its disclosure by the Commissioner to 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.