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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-2 (2026)

When nominations are to be made

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as otherwise provided by law, all nominations to be made by the Governor for appointment to office by the General Assembly or either branch thereof, and all appointments to office to be made by the Governor which require the advice and consent of the General Assembly or either branch thereof, shall be made on or before May first of the year in which the General Assembly is in session, except that, in any case where a vacancy results from death occurring on or after said May first but prior to the adjournment of such session, the Governor may make a nomination or appointment to fill such vacancy as soon as possible thereafter and prior to such adjournment and if such vacancy is in the office of a judge, the nomination shall, notwithstanding the provisions of section 2-40, be referred to the committee on the judiciary immediately on receipt thereof from the Governor.

(1949 Rev., S. 96; 1967, P.A. 164, S. 1.)

History: 1967 act clarified procedure for filling vacancies in appointed offices to allow appointments after May first and before general assembly adjourns.

See Sec. 2-39 re time limit for senate action on nominations.

See Sec. 4-7 re procedure for confirmation or rejection of nominations.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. Collins, 10 A.3d 1005 (Conn. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Collins, 10 A.3d 1005 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 4× “Except as provided by the state and federal constitutions, state statute or the Connecticut Code of Evidence, "[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible.”
Booker v. Jarjura, 990 A.2d 894 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 59× “Essentially, the plaintiff claims that the restriction found in § 4-2 (b) (1) of the charter, which reads: “No minority member of any such board shall be eligible to act as such unless his name shall be one of those listed by such minority leader in accordance with the…”
Viera v. Cohen, 927 A.2d 843 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 4-2; unless `its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or surprise, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
Boyles v. Preston, 792 A.2d 878 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “) The defendant also cites Practice Book § 4-2 in support of his claim. Practice Book § 4-2 (a) in relevant part directs that “[e]very pleading and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual…”
Travelers Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Christie, 916 A.2d 114 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “We further consider Connecticut Code of Evidence § 4-2, which provides in relevant part that "all relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, the Code or the General Statutes. . . ." No…”
State v. Izzo, 843 A.2d 661 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 4-2. A party is entitled to offer any relevant evidence to aid the trier of fact in its determination, as *291 long as the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial.”
State v. Cortes, 885 A.2d 153 (Conn. 2005). “§ 4-2; unless “its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or surprise, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
Stamford Hosp. v. Schwartz, 209 A.3d 1243 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “See Practice Book §§ 4-2 (b) and 10-5. 19 The court found that the defendants' disavowal of their previous acknowledgement of the child's parentage to avoid a debt is counter to the accepted norms of a civilized world.”
State v. Juan J., 344 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2022). “§ 4-2. ‘‘It is axiomatic that the [t]rial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is entitled to great deference.”
Meek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 806 A.2d 546 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). “The Connecticut Code of Evidence provides that “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, the Code or the General Statutes.”
Saunders v. KDFBS, LLC, 335 Conn. 586 (Conn. 2020). “Milne, supra, § 4-2, p. 205 (‘‘all encum- brancers subsequent in right to the interest being fore- closed must be made parties to the action’’ (emphasis added)); see also General Statutes § 49-30 (providing procedure when mortgage or lien on real estate has been foreclosed and…”
State v. Trotter, 793 A.2d 1172 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). “§ 4-2. “Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or surprise, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
Show all 63 citing cases →
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.