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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-6 (2025)

Appointment and term of department heads

✓ 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
Except as otherwise provided by statute, on or before March 1, 1975, and quadrennially thereafter, the Governor shall, with the advice and consent of either house of the General Assembly, appoint each department head in the manner prescribed by section 4-7 and section 4-8, to serve at the pleasure of the Governor but no longer than four years from the first day of March in the year of his appointment, unless reappointed under the provisions of said sections. In the event a department head is not appointed or an incumbent reappointed in the manner prescribed in section 4-8 prior to the first day of March in the year of the appointment, the incumbent may serve beyond that date but not later than the tenth day of March in that year.

(March, 1950, S. 28d; 1969, P.A. 481, S. 1; P.A. 77-614, S. 5, 595, 610; P.A. 80-482, S. 347, 348; P.A. 87-159, S. 1.)

History: 1969 act made provision for governor's dismissal of department heads; P.A. 77-614 made no change, Sec. 595 of the act cancelling amendment called for in Sec. 5; P.A. 80-482 provided exception to statute; P.A. 87-159 added provision re service by incumbent beyond March first, but not beyond March tenth, in the event a department head is not appointed or an incumbent reappointed as prescribed in Sec. 4-8.

Cited. 184 C. 1.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1913–2025 · leading case: State v. Whitford, 799 A.2d 1034 (Conn. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Whitford, 799 A.2d 1034 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 8× “On appeal, the defendant argues that the proffered testimony was admissible pursuant to either § 4-5 (c) *636 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence 10 to prove the victim’s violent character, or § 4-6 11 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence as habit evidence.”
Comm'r of Mental Health & Addiction Servs. v. Saeedi, 71 A.3d 619 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 3× “10 In light of the dearth of legislative history and textual evidence indicating any legislative intent to create a subject matter jurisdictional bar, and mindful of the *852 remedial purpose of § 4-6 ldd; see part III of this opinion; we conclude that failure to comply with the…”
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 956 A.2d 1145 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 4× “The trial court admitted the letter under the business records exception to the hearsay rule and under § 4-6 [18] of the Connecticut Code of Evidence as part of the habit or custom of the corporation.”
Doe v. Town of W. Hartford, 177 A.3d 1128 (Conn. 2018). “routine practice"). Moreover, Spinella's testimony that he later returned to the counter and saw that the documents no *1143 longer were there is additional, albeit circumstantial, evidence that Griffin had come to Spinella's office and retrieved them.”
State v. Cyrus, 1 A.3d 59 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 2× “The forces of the car turning will then destabilize the chain, causing it to move back and forth since, according to Newton's third law of physics, every action also has an equal and opposite reaction.”
Eagen v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 3× “On November 19, 2008, Schwartz filed a whistle-blower retaliation complaint with the chief human rights referee of the office of public hearings pursuant to § 4-6 ldd, alleging that the plaintiff had retaliated against him for his whistle-blowing activities.”
Smith v. Fussenich, 440 F. Supp. 1077 (D. Conn. 1977). · cites it 2× “With deference, we disagree with Judge Newman’s narrow construction of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-6 lp as set forth in his concurring opinion.”
Bahramian v. Papandrea, 440 A.2d 777 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 2× “Under General Statutes §§ 10-2 and 30-2, the governor shall select chairpersons for the state board of education and the liquor control commission, but pursuant to General Statutes § 4-5 the multi-member board and commission are their respective department’s “department head” as…”
Hartford Cnty. Sheriffs Dep't Communities Charities Ass'n v. Blumenthal, 806 A.2d 1158 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “A The plaintiffs in the present case have raised a facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 4-6 ldd, essentially on due process grounds.”
State v. Mekoshvili, 223 A.3d 834 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “‘‘[H]abit is a person’s regular practice of responding to a particular kind of situation with a specific type of conduct.”
Bd. of Water Commissioners v. Curtis, 89 A. 189 (Conn. 1913). “2, §§ 4-6. Prior to this time the introductory resolution formula had not been constant.”
State v. Auburn W., 214 N.E.3d 1013 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). “Duby, acting as standby counsel, assisted the defendant by articulating the logic behind calling this witness.”
Show all 17 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.