(a) The Judicial Department of the state shall consist of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court, the Superior Court, the Office of the Chief Court Administrator and their employees and divisions, the courts of probate, and, as provided in chapter 887, the Public Defender Services Commission. For the purposes of the general statutes, “Judicial Branch” means the Judicial Department.
(b) The territorial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court, and the Superior Court shall be coextensive with the boundaries of the state.
(c) The territorial jurisdiction of each court of probate shall be the probate district established for such court by statute. Each town in this state shall be a probate district or a part of a probate district.
(P.A. 76-436, S. 5, 681; P.A. 82-248, S. 1; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29, S. 1, 82; P.A. 90-230, S. 65, 101; P.A. 03-202, S. 10.)
History: P.A. 82-248 made technical revision, adding “the division of criminal justice, the office of the chief court administrator, the commission on official legal publications, and, as provided in chapter 887, the public defender services commission”; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29 included reference to appellate court; P.A. 90-230 deleted reference to “the division of criminal justice” from Subsec. (a); P.A. 03-202 amended Subsec. (a) by making a technical change, replacing reference to Commission on Official Legal Publications with reference to employees and divisions and adding provision defining “judicial branch”.
See Sec. 51-164s re Superior Court's status as sole trial court and transfer of Common Pleas and Juvenile Courts' jurisdictions to Superior Court.
Cited. 205 C. 542; 224 C. 372; 230 C. 183.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case:
State v. Honsch, 322 A.3d 1019 (Conn. 2024).
State v. Honsch, 322 A.3d 1019 (Conn. 2024).
· cites it 6× “Although ‘‘the distinction between territorial jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction is not always clear’’; In re Teagan K.-O., 335 Conn. 745 , 765 n.22, 242 A.”
State v. Ross, 646 A.2d 1318 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Without challenging the trial court’s underlying findings of fact, the defendant argues that its ruling of law was incorrect. We disagree. Our starting point is the observation that, as a general matter, the Superior Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate a charge…”
State v. Senquiz, 793 A.2d 1095 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” Specifically, the state alleged in the information that the defendant committed the charged crimes “in the city of New Britain, on various dates between and including October 1, 1995, and May 9, 1997 .”
In re Teagan K.-O., 335 Conn. 745 (2020).
· cites it 2× “‘‘Hence, outside the territorial limits of a court’s jurisdiction, the coercive effectiveness of its judgment depends upon the judgment’s being given recognition by the authorities of another government, under a principle of comity or by virtue of legal provisions such as the…”
In re Teagan K.-O., 242 A.3d 59 (Conn. 2020).
· cites it 2× “In 1976, the legislature enacted No. 76-436, § 14, of the 1976 Public Acts, which amended the statutory language to ‘‘within this state,’’ to reflect the transfer of the juvenile court’s powers to the unified Superior Court with statewide jurisdiction.”
State v. Gojcaj, 151 Conn. App. 183 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Consistent with the general rule that our courts will punish only offenses committed within the territory of our state, the state must prove that the killing charged in the information occurred within the territorial borders of Connecticut.”
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.