Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 51 — COURTS · Chapter 883 — Supreme Court
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-207 (2025)

Composition of panel. Summoning of court members or other judges to constitute panel

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Supreme Court shall sit in panels of five, six or seven judges, pursuant to rules adopted by said court.

(b) Each party in any case before the Supreme Court has a right to be heard by a panel consisting of at least five associate judges or the Chief Justice and four associate judges. The Chief Justice or an associate judge of the Supreme Court who elects to retain office but to retire from full-time active service, pursuant to subsection (b) of section 51-198, may participate in any panel if the Chief Justice or at least one associate judge is disabled, disqualified or unavailable.

(c) If a panel cannot be constituted from the seven members of the Supreme Court and any senior judges of the Supreme Court due to the disability, disqualification or unavailability of one or more members, the Chief Justice or, in the case of his or her disability or disqualification, the most senior associate judge qualified may summon one or more judges of the Superior Court, and one or more judges and senior judges of the Appellate Court to constitute a panel, who shall attend and act as judges of the Supreme Court for the time being.

(d) The Chief Justice or any judge shall not sit to review a decision he or she made below.

(1949 Rev., S. 7681; February, 1965, P.A. 252; 331, S. 27; P.A. 76-436, S. 10a, 108, 681; P.A. 82-248, S. 108; P.A. 87-508, S. 4, 10; 87-589, S. 42, 87; P.A. 06-152, S. 12; P.A. 10-43, S. 3; P.A. 12-133, S. 14.)

History: 1965 acts specified that full court consist of five judges, added reference to sixth member and to summoning extra judge “if business before court requires it” and added provision re powers of chief justice or senior judge to summon chief court administrator to constitute a full court; P.A. 76-436 specified that summoning of chief court administrator to constitute full court depends on whether he is an associate judge of the supreme court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 82-248 made technical revision, rewording some provisions and dividing section into Subsecs., but made no substantive change; P.A. 87-508 added provision permitting full court to consist of six associate justices or the chief justice and five or six associate judges, upon order of the chief justice and added “or seventh” member “or both”; P.A. 87-589 made technical changes in Subsec. (b); P.A. 06-152 amended Subsec. (b) by replacing “senior judge” with “most senior associate judge”, deleting “or one or more of the judges of the Superior Court”, adding provision re summoning judges when full court cannot be constituted from seven members of Supreme Court and making a technical change, and amended Subsec. (c) by replacing “senior judge” with “most senior associate judge” and making technical changes, effective June 6, 2006; P.A. 10-43 amended Subsec. (a) to provide that each party has right to be heard by a panel, rather than a full court, rephrase provisions and delete provision re panel may consist of six associate judges or Chief Justice and five or six associate judges, amended Subsec. (b) to replace “If any judge is absent and such right is claimed” with “If any judge is disabled”, delete provision re failure to waive absence of judge, replace “absence” with “disability”, replace “present and qualified” with “qualified” and replace “full court” with “panel” and replaced former Subsec. (c) re summoning of Chief Court Administrator to constitute full court with new Subsec. (c) re prohibition on Chief Justice or any judge sitting to review decision he or she made below; P.A. 12-133 added new Subsec. (a) re Supreme Court to sit in panels, redesignated existing Subsec. (a) as Subsec. (b) and amended same to add provision re Chief Justice or associate judge who elects to retain office but retire from full-time active service may participate in panel if Chief Justice or associate judge is disabled, disqualified or unavailable, deleted provision of former Subsec. (b) re constitution of panel when a judge is disabled or disqualified, redesignated remaining provision of former Subsec. (b) as Subsec. (c) and amended same to add provisions re unavailability of Supreme Court judge or senior judge of Supreme Court as grounds for summoning another judge to constitute panel, redesignated existing Subsec. (c) as Subsec. (d), and made technical changes, effective July 1, 2012.

Cited. 184 C. 21; 230 C. 183.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1981–2018 · leading case: Honulik v. Town of Greenwich, 980 A.2d 845 (Conn. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Honulik v. Town of Greenwich, 980 A.2d 845 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 22× “See General Statutes § 51-207 (a). Justices Palmer and Schaller did not participate in the decision to grant reconsideration, nor did they participate in the resolution of the jurisdictional claim addressed in this opinion.”
Skakel v. Comm'r of Corr., 188 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 4× “In that motion, he argues that, because of the authoring justice's retirement, Practice Book § 71-5 and General Statutes §§ 51-207 and 51-209 require that the court provide a "replacement" seventh panel member so that on reconsideration he will "enjoy a panel of the same size as…”
State v. Ross, 646 A.2d 1318 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, we disagree with the dissenting justice’s contention that the members of the Appellate Court who sit with this court in this case by designation, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-207 (b), lack the institutional competence to decide this case.”
State v. Kelly, 770 A.2d 908 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 2× “In writing a concurrence, I recognize that I am not a full member of our Supreme Court and that I sat on this appeal by designation, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-207 (b). In its wisdom, the legislature has cloaked those judges who sit by designation with the same authority…”
Doyle v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins., 746 A.2d 1257 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 14× “General Statutes § 51-207; 1 but see Practice Book § 70-7.”
State v. Ayala, 610 A.2d 1162 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 2× “5 See General Statutes § 51-207. II I also disagree with the majority’s disposition of the merits of the present case.”
Dacey v. Connecticut Bar Assn., 441 A.2d 49 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 2× “3 General Statutes § 51-207 provides that in the case of the absence or disqualification of sufficient justices of this court a full court may be obtained by summoning judges of the Superior Court to serve as judges of the Supreme Court for the time being.”
Hammond v. Comm'r of Corr., 792 A.2d 774 (Conn. 2002). “Justice Shea identified several other circumstances in which pretrial detainees who could not satisfy the strict language of § 18-98 nevertheless were entitled to credit thereunder: “Prisoners who are transferred by the commissioner pursuant to [General Statutes] § 18-86 from a…”
In re Dean, 717 A.2d 176 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× ““(d) In determining whether to remove or suspend a judge or family support magistrate from office, the determination shall be made by a full *192 court, as provided in section 51-207. A judge or family support magistrate shall not be removed except on the concurrent opinion of…”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-207(a): 1 case
Honulik v. Town of Greenwich, 980 A.2d 845 (Conn. 2009). “See General Statutes § 51-207 (a). Justices Palmer and Schaller did not participate in the decision to grant reconsideration, nor did they participate in the resolution of the jurisdictional claim addressed in this opinion.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-207(b): 1 case
Honulik v. Town of Greenwich, 980 A.2d 845 (Conn. 2009). “See General Statutes § 51-207 (a). Justices Palmer and Schaller did not participate in the decision to grant reconsideration, nor did they participate in the resolution of the jurisdictional claim addressed in this opinion.”
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.