Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 43-23 (2026)

Manufacture, sale and use of milk bottles

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Typical glass milk bottles conforming to the requirements of this section may be used and reused as liquid measures in dispensing milk, skimmed milk, buttermilk or cream. Containers made of paper composition or similar substance may be used in dispensing such commodities, but shall not be used more than once. Bottles may be made in the following capacities only: Four quarts, three quarts, two quarts, one quart, one pint, ten fluid ounces, one-half pint and one gill. All such bottles shall be so made as to hold their rated capacity when filled to a well-defined mark and, when in use, shall be so filled. Each milk bottle shall be clearly and permanently marked with its capacity, with the word “Sealed” and, for purposes of identification, with the name, initials or trademark of the manufacturer and the manufacturer's mold designation which identifies the pattern or design of the bottle. The capacity designation and the word “Sealed” shall not be on the bottom of the bottle. Each manufacturer of bottles selling marked bottles in this state shall register, with the Commissioner of Weights and Measures, his name and address and the mark, designated by said commissioner, by which his bottles may be clearly distinguished from the bottles of other manufacturers. Said commissioner shall prepare a table of tolerances to be allowed in excess or deficiency on individual bottles and on the average capacity of bottles in any one lot, a copy of which table of tolerances shall be furnished to all sealers of weights and measures and to other interested persons. Any person receiving, in this state, a shipment of new milk bottles in a quantity equal to one gross or more shall immediately notify the municipal sealer of weights and measures having jurisdiction, and such sealer, being so notified, shall immediately proceed to examine a reasonable number of such bottles and shall ascertain whether the bottles are accurate in capacity within the tolerances to be allowed in excess or deficiency on individual bottles, and on the average capacity of bottles, as prepared by said commissioner. If such bottles are found to be accurate within the specified tolerances, the sealer shall notify the owner of his finding and permit the use of such bottles in this state. When he finds that the bottles are inaccurate beyond the limits of the tolerances in excess or deficiency as to individual bottles, or inaccurate beyond the prescribed tolerance for the average bottle, he shall immediately impound such bottles and hold them in his possession for a period of not less than ten days. On making such seizure, he shall immediately notify both the purchaser and the manufacturer of such bottles and, at the end of thirty days from seizure, he may destroy such bottles. Any person who, by himself or by his agent or as the servant or agent of another, violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 43-9.

(1949 Rev., S. 6766; 1949, S. 2880d; September, 1957, P.A. 12, S. 1; 1959, P.A. 33; 152, S. 62; P.A. 75-168.)

History: 1959 acts provided for four-quart bottles and deleted reference to county sealers of weights and measures; P.A. 75-168 authorized three-quart bottles.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: State v. Rupar, 978 A.2d 502 (Conn. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Rupar, 978 A.2d 502 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 3× “” The review division stated further: “Pursuant to [Practice Book] § 43-23 et seq., the [review division] is limited in the scope of its review.”

State v. Martin M., 70 A.3d 135 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). “See Practice Book § 43-23 et seq. The defendant raised essentially the same arguments as those he raises in the present appeal.”

State v. Wilcox, 936 A.2d 295 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “At the start of the hearing, the plaintiff in error filed a motion for a continuance due to the pendency of the federal habeas petition.”

Gentile v. Comm'r of Corr., 230 Conn. App. 354 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025). “In reviewing the record as a whole, the division finds that the sentencing court’s actions were in accordance with the parameters of Con- necticut Practice Book § 43-23 . . . .’’ Accordingly, the petitioner’s Connecticut sentence was affirmed.”

Donald v. Comm'r of Corr., 216 Conn. App. 63 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). “’’ 5 The review division may modify sentences only in accordance with the provisions of Practice Book § 43-23 et seq. and General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.”

State v. Riley (Conn. App. Ct. 2026). “and Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., rather than applying the good cause standard pursuant to § 53a-39.”

Mack v. Comm'r of Corr. (Conn. App. Ct. 2026). “”30 In the present case, it is undisputed that Pickering did not file a sentence review application on the petitioner’s behalf and the petitioner never had his sentence reviewed by the sentence review division.”

Hilton v. Comm'r of Corr. (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). “11 Practice Book § 43-23 provides: ‘‘It is the responsibility of the counsel of record at the time of sentencing to represent the defendant at the hearing before the sentence review division of the superior court, unless, for excep- tional reasons, such counsel is excused by 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.