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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 43-41 (2026)

Variations from marked weight

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When liquefied petroleum gas is sold or offered for sale by weight, variations at the rate of one pound per one hundred pounds plus or minus the marked net weight of the container are permitted in individual containers, but the average weight of not less than twelve containers shall not be less than the marked net weight of the container. When measured by meter, the meter and pertinent equipment must be such as to assure accurate measurement within plus or minus one per cent.

(1951, S. 2887d.)

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case: State v. Bonner, 964 A.2d 73 (Conn. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bonner, 964 A.2d 73 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 8× “Practice Book § 43-41 provides in relevant part: “If the defendant is not brought to trial within the applica *485 ble time limit set forth in Sections 43-39 and 43-40, and, absent good cause shown, a trial is not commenced within thirty days of the filing of a motion for speedy…”
State v. McCahill, 828 A.2d 1235 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 13× “McCahill, *439 after he was not brought to trial within thirty days after he filed a motion for a speedy trial pursuant to General Statutes § 54-82m 1 and Practice Book § 43-41. 2 The defendant appeals 3 from the judgment of conviction of burglary in the first degree in…”
State v. Nicholson, 803 A.2d 391 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “” The court concluded that the defendant had failed to comply with Practice Book § 43-41 and further concluded that the delay complained of did not prejudice him.”
State v. Hargett, 343 Conn. 604 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 4× “Thus, if, pursuant to a defen- dant’s state law guarantees; see General Statutes § 54- 82m; Practice Book § 43-41; trial commences within thirty days of his filing of a motion for a speedy trial, the defendant’s constitutional claim is of little merit.”
State v. Cote, 922 A.2d 322 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Practice Book § 43-41 1 on June 3, 2004. The court delayed ruling on the motion for a speedy trial and on July 14,2004, denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss after determining that the motion for a speedy trial…”
State v. Williams, 926 A.2d 7 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “See Practice Book § 43-41. In his reply brief, the defendant contends that jury selection in his case did not start for six weeks after the first motion to dismiss Moscowitz was heard.”
State v. Hampton, 784 A.2d 444 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Those arguments, however, do not take into consideration the final sentence of Practice Book § 43-41, which clearly and unequivocally provides that “[f]ailure of the defendant *368 to file a motion to dismiss prior to the commencement of trial shall constitute a waiver of the…”
State v. Lacks, 755 A.2d 254 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “Practice Book § 43-41 provides in relevant part: “If the defendant is not brought to trial within the applicable time limit .”
State v. Ortiz, 252 Conn. 533 (Conn. 2000). “” Practice Book § 43-41, previously § 956D, provides in relevant part: “If the defendant is not brought to trial within the applicable time limit set forth in Sections 43-39 and 43-40, and, absent good cause shown, a trial is not commenced within thirty days of the filing of a…”
State v. Jeffreys, 828 A.2d 659 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). “” Practice Book § 43-41 provides: “If the defendant is not brought to trial within ihe applicable time limit set forth in Sections 43-39 and 43-40, and, absent good cause shown, a trial is not commenced within thirty days of the filing of a motion for speedy trial by the…”
State v. Caracoglia, 895 A.2d 810 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). “In his appellate brief, the defendant claims that he preserved his claim when he asked Judge O’Keefe on October 28, 2003, to dismiss the charges against him.”
Saunders v. Flanagan, 62 F. Supp. 2d 629 (D. Conn. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 43-39(d), he does not make specific allegations concerning the nature of the delay and whether the delay was excluda-ble from that time limitation under the various exclusions set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 43-41 . The plaintiffs general allegation that the defendants delayed…”
Show all 19 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.