Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 06 — · Chapter 76 — County Organization
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-2 (2026)

Boundaries on Long Island Sound

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The counties of New London, Middlesex, New Haven and Fairfield extend southerly to the southerly boundary line of the state as that boundary line is settled and defined by an agreement with the state of New York bearing date December 8, 1879, and published with the special acts of the General Assembly passed in the year 1880, and consented to and approved by the Congress of the United States by an Act approved February 26, 1881. The dividing line between any two of said counties which border on each other is and shall continue to be a line drawn due south from their original southeast and southwest corners to the said southerly boundary line of the state.

(1949 Rev., S. 423.)

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1983–1998 · leading case: Conf. Ctr. Ltd. v. TRC—The Rsch. Corp., 455 A.2d 857 (Conn. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Conf. Ctr. Ltd. v. TRC—The Rsch. Corp., 455 A.2d 857 (Conn. 1983). “1980) § 6-2. This court has in the past looked to operative principles contained in the Uniform Commercial Code for a source of law that informs real property transactions as well as sale of goods transactions.”
Lauer v. Zoning Comm'n, 716 A.2d 840 (Conn. 1998). “) §§ 6-2 through 6-4. Furthermore, prior to 1979, the judgment provisions were substantially similar to those of today, but the rules on findings were considerably more detailed and no mention was made of the requirement of a memorandum of decision.”
Kusterer v. Sheehy, 483 A.2d 1105 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984). “Additional powers granted to the town meeting include the power to petition for enactment of certain ordinances; § 4-5 (g); the power to reject the proposed annual budget; § 6-2 (h); the power to reject supplemental appropriations; § 6-3 (b) (1); and the power to reject capital…”
Lataunya Brock v. A-1 Auto Serv., Inc., Et Al., 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 14098 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998). “, but this will not be sufficient in a judgment file, which must give all the data necessary for use in drawing any execution that may be necessary.” These provisions draw a commonsense distinction between the writ (and, much later, the judgment file), which must describe the…”
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.