Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 43 — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES · Chapter 752 — Weight and Measurement of Specific Articles
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 43-28 (2026)

Sale of coal and coke by weight

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
All coal and coke sold, except in accordance with a written agreement with the purchaser otherwise, or offered for sale, in this state, shall be sold or offered for sale by weight. No person shall deliver any coal or coke without first having the coal or coke weighed by a public weighmaster on stationary scales suitable for the weighing of coal or coke, which have been tested and sealed by an authorized sealer or inspector of weights and measures. Such coal or coke shall be accompanied while in transit by a delivery ticket and a duplicate original thereof, on which shall be distinctly expressed in ink, or other indelible substance, in pounds, the weight of the coal or coke contained in the vehicle or other receptacle, together with the name and address of the seller, the name and address of the purchaser, the signature and license number of the public weighmaster and the date of weighing, together with the number of bags or sacks of the commodity, when the bags or sacks are representative of the quantity contained in the vehicle used for transporting the coal or coke, provided coal or coke sold or offered for sale in this state in quantities of seventy-five pounds or less, in paper bags, sacks or similar containers, when the name and address of the dealer and the net contents of avoirdupois weight are distinctly and indelibly marked in ink or otherwise on the paper bags, sacks or similar containers, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section requiring delivery tickets and duplicates thereof. One of the duplicate delivery tickets shall be surrendered, upon demand, to any sealer or inspector of weights and measures for his inspection, and the ticket, or, when the sealer desires to retain one of the duplicate tickets, a weight slip, issued by the seller and signed and dated by the sealer or inspector, shall be delivered to the purchaser or his agent or representative, at the time of the delivery of the coal or coke, and the other duplicate ticket shall be retained by the seller for a period of one year, subject to inspection by any sealer or inspector of weights and measures. If the purchaser or his agent takes the coal or coke from the seller's place of business, a delivery ticket in the form required by this section and signed by a public weighmaster shall be given to the purchaser or his agent at the time of delivery. No person shall sell or deliver, or attempt to sell or deliver, or offer to sell or deliver less than the amount of coal or coke represented in the delivery tickets therefor, provided a tolerance at the rate of five pounds to the ton shall be allowed for unavoidable wastage and variation in scales. No public weighmaster shall weigh coal or coke loaded on a vehicle for transportation thereon and sign a delivery ticket therefor, unless such public weighmaster has first weighed the vehicle empty on the same day and on the same scales, in order to determine the true net weight of the load of coal or coke. Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months or both.

(1949 Rev., S. 6763; P.A. 81-330, S. 9, 13; P.A. 24-142, S. 49.)

History: P.A. 81-330 increased from 50 to 75 pounds the quantity of coal sold which is exempt from provisions requiring delivery tickets and duplicates; P.A. 24-142 deleted provision re firm or corporation, substituted “public weighmaster” for “public weigher” and made a conforming change, effective June 6, 2024.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · 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 23× “’ [Practice Book § 43-28.] “The [review] division is without authority to modify a sentence except in accordance with the provisions of [Practice Book] § 43-23 et seq.”
Nelson v. Comm'r of Corr., 167 A.3d 952 (Conn. 2017). “2d 1065 (2007) ; see also Practice Book § 43-28 ("[t]he review division shall review the sentence imposed and determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in the light of the nature of the offense, the character of the…”
John B. v. Comm'r of Corr., 194 Conn. App. 767 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “He claimed, pursuant to Practice Book § 43-28, that his fifty-five year sentence was inappropriate and disproportionate because he had no criminal record prior to his convictions in those cases.”
Mejia v. Comm'r of Corr., 962 A.2d 148 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). “When considering the violence of the act of murder and taking into consideration the criminal history of the petitioner, we find .”
State v. Peay, 959 A.2d 655 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). “” Practice Book § 43-28. The panel’s actions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Angel M., 337 Conn. 655 (Conn. 2020). “2d 1065 (2007); see also Practice Book § 43-28 (‘‘[t]he review division shall review the sentence imposed and determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in the light of the nature of the offense, the character of the…”
Gentile v. Comm'r of Corr., 230 Conn. App. 354 (Conn. App. Ct. 2025). “7 Practice Book § 43-28 provides: ‘‘The review division shall review the sentence imposed and determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in the light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the…”
Donald v. Comm'r of Corr., 216 Conn. App. 63 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 2× “’’ Finally, Prac- tice Book § 43-28 provides: ‘‘The review division shall review the sentence imposed and determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappro- priate or disproportionate in the light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender,…”
State v. Angel M. (Conn. 2020). “2d 1065 (2007); see also Practice Book § 43-28 (‘‘[t]he review division shall review the sentence imposed and determine whether the sentence should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in the light of the nature of the offense, the character of the…”
McGee v. Cournoyer (D. Conn. 2020). “In the meantime, McGee filed a motion for sentence review pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 43-28 on the ground that his sentence was inappropriate and disproportionate.”
State v. Riley (Conn. App. Ct. 2026). “He argues that, unlike a sentence review, which is “limited to a determination as to whether the sentence was appropriate or dispro- portionate in light of the circumstances existing at the time the sentence was imposed,”10 a motion for sentence 10 See Practice Book § 43-28…”
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.