(a) The consent of the state of Connecticut is given, in accordance with the seventeenth clause, eighth section, of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, to the acquisition by the United States, by purchase, condemnation or otherwise, of any land in this state required for customhouses, courthouses, post offices, arsenals or other public buildings or for any other purposes of the government. Exclusive jurisdiction in and over any land so acquired by the United States is ceded to the United States for all purposes except the service of all civil and criminal process of the courts of this state and as provided in subsection (b) of this section; but the jurisdiction so ceded shall continue no longer than the United States owns such land. The jurisdiction ceded shall not vest until the United States has acquired the title to such lands by purchase, condemnation or otherwise; and, so long as such lands remain the property of the United States when acquired as aforesaid, the same shall be exempt from all state, county and municipal taxation, assessment or other charges.
(b) (1) The Governor may accept, on behalf of this state, from the appropriate federal authority retrocession of full or partial jurisdiction over any land provided for in subsection (a) of this section. Documents concerning such retrocession shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of the State and recorded in a like manner as the original land acquisition by the United States.
(2) If the United States Attorney, or the United States District Court, for the district of Connecticut waives exclusive jurisdiction in any matter relating to a violation by a minor, as defined in section 1-1d, of federal law within the boundaries of any military installation of the United States Department of Defense located on any land provided for in subsection (a) of this section, the state shall exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over such military installation in such matter.
(1949 Rev., S. 7172; P.A. 75-46; P.A. 83-587, S. 57, 96; P.A. 22-63, S. 1.)
History: P.A. 75-46 added Subsec. (b) re governor's acceptance of retrocession of jurisdiction over land from federal authority; P.A. 83-587 made a technical amendment to Subsec. (b); P.A. 22-63 amended Subsec. (b) to designate existing provisions Subdiv. (1), to add Subdiv. (2) re concurrent jurisdiction and to make a technical change.
Constitutionality of such a provision. 75 C. 319. Cited. 170 C. 344.
Notes of Decisions
Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Bd. of Educ., 855 A.2d 212 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “designate another authority or authorities to exercise concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction”); General Statutes § 48-1 (a) (“[exclusive jurisdiction in and over any land .”
Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc., 365 A.2d 1093 (Conn. 1976).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 48-1. 3 But for all lands acquired by the United States since February 1, 1940, Congress has required that a federal official file with the governor of the state in which the lands are located a notice of acceptance of jurisdiction, either exclusive or…”
Matter of Adoption of PEP, 407 S.E.2d 505 (N.C. 1991).
· cites it 4× “The secondary purpose of this Chapter is ... to prevent later disturbance of [the adoptive parents'] relationship to the child by biological parents whose legal rights have not been fully protected.”
Lankford v. Wright, 489 S.E.2d 604 (N.C. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Defendants, the administrators and named heirs of Lula Newton, filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted defendants' motion.”
United States v. Town of Windsor, Conn., 496 F. Supp. 581 (D. Conn. 1980).
· cites it 2× “The State of Connecticut has not ceded exclusive jurisdiction over lands leased by the United States, See Conn.Gen.Stat. § 48-1; and since no federal official has filed with the governor of Connecticut a notice of acceptance of jurisdiction, (PX-D), there is a conclusive…”
In re Adoption of Duncan, 435 S.E.2d 121 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
“C.G.S. §§ 48-1(3) (1991), 50-13.1, 5043.2(a) (1987 and 1992 Supp.”
Lankford v. Wright, 472 S.E.2d 31 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
“C.G.S. §§ 48-1 to -38 (1991), and because equitable adoption is not recognized in this State, the trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs action.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 48-1(1) — 2 cases
Matter of Adoption of PEP, 407 S.E.2d 505 (N.C. 1991).
“The secondary purpose of this Chapter is ... to prevent later disturbance of [the adoptive parents'] relationship to the child by biological parents whose legal rights have not been fully protected.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 48-1(3) — 3 cases
Matter of Adoption of PEP, 407 S.E.2d 505 (N.C. 1991).
“The secondary purpose of this Chapter is ... to prevent later disturbance of [the adoptive parents'] relationship to the child by biological parents whose legal rights have not been fully protected.”
In re Adoption of Duncan, 435 S.E.2d 121 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
“C.G.S. §§ 48-1(3) (1991), 50-13.1, 5043.2(a) (1987 and 1992 Supp.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 48-1(a) — 1 case
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.