(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, there shall be held in each town, annually, a town meeting for the transaction of business proper to come before such meeting, which meeting shall be designated as the annual town meeting. Special town meetings may be convened when the selectmen deem it necessary, and they shall warn a special town meeting on application of twenty inhabitants qualified to vote in town meetings, such meeting to be held within twenty-one days after receiving such application. Any town meeting may be adjourned from time to time as the interest of the town requires.
(b) Where any town's public buildings do not contain adequate space for holding annual or special town meetings, any such town may hold any such meeting outside the boundaries of the town, provided such meetings are held at the nearest practical locations to the town.
(1949 Rev., S. 491, 492; 1953, S. 205d; 1957, P.A. 226, S. 1; P.A. 73-412; P.A. 77-56.)
History: P.A. 73-412 deleted requirement that annual meeting be held on first Monday in October barring other provisions in law; P.A. 77-56 added Subsec. (b) re meetings held outside of town.
Vote may be rescinded at subsequent meeting. 34 C. 108. Calling of special meeting for legal purpose is obligatory; immaterial that application names a day. 41 C. 245. Mandamus to compel calling of special meeting; reasonable certainty enough in application. 89 C. 561. Cited. 139 C. 209. Mandamus lies for directing selectmen to call town meeting for acceptance of street as public highway. 151 C. 372. Cited. 204 C. 551. Provisions of section do not preempt provisions of town charters delineating the circumstances requiring town meeting involvement. 234 C. 513.
Cited. 21 CA 351. Plaintiff's application to warn town meeting concerning dismissal of town planner was not proper under section. 85 CA 555.
No duty on the selectman to call a meeting pursuant to a petition where object is unlawful, frivolous or improper. 16 CS 486; 19 CS 216. While the board of selectmen is required to warn a town meeting on petition of twenty inhabitants qualified to vote, there is no duty to warn a meeting pursuant to such petition unless the board is reasonably certain that the object of the petition is lawful, proper, and not frivolous. 32 CS 237.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
48
cases (
17 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case:
State v. Holley, 175 A.3d 514 (Conn. 2018).
State v. Holley, 175 A.3d 514 (Conn. 2018).
· cites it 17× “§ 7-1, commentary. "In some situations, a witness may not be able to convey sufficiently his or her sensory impressions to the fact finder by a mere report of the facts upon which those impressions were based.”
Windham Taxpayers Ass'n v. Bd. of Selectmen, 662 A.2d 1281 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 20× “In order to consider that issue, we must address the underlying issue of whether General Statutes § 7-1, 3 which requires that a town meeting be held upon petition of twenty or more qualified voters, preempts a town’s charter, enacted pursuant to the Home Rule Act, 4 that vests…”
Jacobs v. Gen. Elec. Co., 880 A.2d 151 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 8× “The plaintiff further claims that the trial court improperly admitted lay opinion testimony regarding the defendant’s reason for laying off the plaintiff from individuals who were not involved in the layoff decision, in violation of § 7-1 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.”
State v. Bruny, 342 Conn. 169 (Conn. 2022).
· cites it 6× “129 ), this court amended § 7-3 (a) of the Code of Evidence to incorporate an exception to the ban on lay opinion testimony that embraces an ultimate issue for opinion testimony that relates to the identification of a criminal defendant depicted in a surveillance video or…”
Concerned Citizens of Sterling v. Town of Sterling, 529 A.2d 666 (Conn. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Thereafter, certain residents of Sterling filed an application with the town selectmen, pursuant to General Statutes § 7-1, 4 requesting that a special town meeting be held for the purpose of reconsidering the proposed sale.”
Morris v. Congdon, 893 A.2d 413 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 10× “The plaintiffs filed an action in the Superior Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the board to warn a town meeting pursuant to General Statutes § 7-1 (a). 3 The defendants filed an answer and special defenses, asserting that the subject matter of the proposed meeting was…”
Clerk of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 895 A.2d 743 (Conn. 2006).
· cites it 4× “" [4] Collins cited Practice Book § 7-1, which provides in relevant part: "The clerk shall keep a record of all pending cases, including applications and petitions made to the court, together with a record of each paper filed and order made or judgment rendered therein, with the…”
State v. Davis, 344 Conn. 122 (Conn. 2022).
· cites it 8× “129 ), lay opinion testimony concerning the identification of a criminal defendant depicted in a surveillance video is admissible if, in accordance with the provision (§ 7-1) of the Code of Evidence governing the admissi- bility of lay opinion testimony, it is rationally based…”
State v. Brett B., 200 A.3d 706 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The defendant has failed to demonstrate that by allowing Vailonis to express an opinion as to the cause of a bloodstain, the court committed the type of obvious and readily discernible error that would warrant application of the plain error doctrine.”
State v. Finan, 843 A.2d 630 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Connecticut Code of Evidence § 7-1 provides: “If a witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness may not testify in the form of an opinion, unless the opinion is rationally based on the perception of the witness and is helpful to a clear understanding of the testimony of…”
State v. Morocho, 888 A.2d 164 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 3× “He argues that § 7-1 12 and § 7-3 13 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence prohibit the admission of opinion testimony by lay witnesses and opinion testimony on the ultimate issue, respectively, and therefore the plenary standard of review applies.”
State v. Hazard, 201 Conn. App. 46 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 4× “The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial, which was based on his claim that a police officer’s testimony constituted improper lay opinion under the applicable provi- sion of the Connecticut Code of Evidence (§ 7-1) and an…”
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.