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Section 6-30 is repealed, effective December 1, 2000.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.)
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
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). “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). “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). “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). “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.