Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-30 (2026)

Bond

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 6-30 is repealed, effective December 1, 2000.

(1949 Rev., S. 451; P.A. 73-237, S. 1, 3; P.A. 94-177, S. 9; May 25 Sp. Sess. P.A. 94-1, S. 67, 130; P.A. 00-99, S. 153, 154.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1994–2003 · leading case: Antinerella v. Rioux, 642 A.2d 699 (Conn. 1994).
Antinerella v. Rioux, 642 A.2d 699 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 6× “The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s reliance on General Statutes §§ 6-30 and 6-30a 10 was misplaced, and, that *486 in the absence of any other provision expressly authorizing suit against the sheriff for wrongful termination of employment, the doctrine of sovereign…”
Miller v. Egan, 828 A.2d 549 (Conn. 2003). “to 1999) §§ 6-30 and 6-30a, and that he was not required, pursuant to General Statutes § 4-165, to exhaust his administrative remedies because *310 he had alleged in the complaint that the defendants’ actions were reckless and malicious.”
Walker v. Connecticut, 106 F. Supp. 2d 364 (D. Conn. 2000). · cites it 3× “See Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 6-30 et seq. A High Sheriff may only be removed by the General Assembly while he is serving out his elected term.”
Antinerella v. Rioux, 690 A.2d 450 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 6-30 requires a high sheriff to execute a bond of $10,000 to “answer all damages which any person may sustain by his unfaithfulness, malfeasance, wrongdoing, misfeasance or neglect .”
Miller v. Kupchunos, 106 F. Supp. 2d 340 (D. Conn. 2000). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff also alleges violations of Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 6-30 and 6-30a. (Id. at 9-10, 11 — 12).”
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.