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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 43-29 (2026)

Location of scales. Fee for testing scales outside the state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
All scales tested and approved by the commissioner shall be located within this state or within an additional adjoining area extending at least five miles, but not more than ten miles, from the state boundaries; the outside boundary of such additional adjoining area beyond the five mile minimum to be fixed by the Commissioner of Weights and Measures and to be based upon the commissioner's facilities for testing and inspecting scales located outside the state and for maintaining reasonable supervision of weighing at such scales. The commissioner shall charge a fee of ten dollars for testing and approving any scales located outside the state.

(1949 Rev., S. 6764.)

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: State v. Colon.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Colon (Conn. 2004). · cites it 3× “In so concluding, we first noted that Practice Book, 1978-97, § 943, now Practice Book § 43-29, which prescribed certain procedures that were to be followed in probation revocation proceedings, “[did] not purport to govern probation proceedings exclusively, and in fact [did] not…”
State v. Cator (Conn. 2001). · cites it 4× “The two alternative procedures for initiating probation revocation proceedings are set forth in General Statutes § 53a-32 and Practice Book § 43-29. 20 State v. Patterson, supra, 310-11.”
State v. Faraday (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the state must prove each alleged violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence at a revocation proceeding, in accordance with General Statutes § 53a-32 7 and Prac *184 tice Book § 43-29. 8 *185 We now turn to the standard that governs our review of a…”
State v. Mitchell (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 9× “In his motion, the defendant alleged that the conditions imposed on him by the Garvin agreement expired on March 12, 2004, and that the sentence was imposed illegally because he did not receive notice of the October, 2005 sentencing date as required under the applicable rule of…”
State v. Esquilin (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “As such, at a revocation proceeding, the state must prove each alleged violation of probation by a preponderance of the evidence in accordance with General Statutes § 53a-32 8 and Practice Book § 43-29. 9 Id., at 183-84, 842 A.2d 567 .”
State v. Outlaw (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 4× “10 Practice Book § 43-29 11 provides three methods for initiating vio *525 lation of probation proceedings.”
State v. Mack (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “On April 9, 1992, the defendant’s probation officer filed a motion pursuant to Practice Book § 943, now § 43-29, alleging that the defendant’s 1992 offenses constituted a violation of the terms of the probation that he was serving for his 1987 conviction.”
State v. Barile (Conn. 2004). “2d 931 (2001); see General Statutes § 53a-32; Practice Book § 43-29. By statute, a court may: (1) continue the sentence of probation; (2) modify or enlarge the conditions of probation; (3) extend the period of probation; or (4) revoke the sentence of probation.”
State v. Bordeleau (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “Ill The defendant next claims that his motion to dismiss should have been granted because the state’s attorney initiated the probation revocation proceedings and not the office of adult probation in violation of General Statutes § 53a-32 and Practice Book § 43-29. 2 We do not…”
State v. Marshall (Conn. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “3d 564 (procedures for revocation of probation hearings set forth in Practice Book § 43-29 are not applicable to sentencing hearing), cert.”
State v. Santos (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “Neither that statute nor the associated Practice Book § 43-29 requires a court to order a new or supplemented presentence investigation report prior to the revocation of probation.”
State v. Orr (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). “At the revocation hearing, the prosecuting authority and the defendant may offer evidence and cross-examine wit- nesses.”
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.