Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 07 — MUNICIPALITIES · Chapter 90 — Town and Other Community Meetings
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-2 (2026)

Ordinance concerning convening of special town meetings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7-1, any town may adopt an ordinance, in the manner provided by section 7-157, requiring that a special town meeting be warned by the selectmen on application of at least fifty inhabitants qualified to vote at town meetings, such meeting to be held within twenty-one days after such application is received by the selectmen; provided nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any ordinance legally adopted prior to October 1, 1957.

(1953, S. 206d; 1957, P.A. 226, S. 2.)

Cited. 234 C. 513.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 95 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: State v. Bruny, 342 Conn. 169 (Conn. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bruny, 342 Conn. 169 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 8× “n individuals throughout the nightclub using alphanumeric codes, on the ground that E’s testimony invaded the province of the jury, in violation of § 7-3 (a) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence: this court determined that expert testimony pertaining to the identification of a…”
Sullivan v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 971 A.2d 676 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 6× “§ 7-2. [4] In other words, "[i]n order *682 to render an expert opinion the witness must be qualified to do so and there must be a factual basis for the opinion.”
State v. Sorabella, 891 A.2d 897 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 4× “The trial court reaffirmed its earlier ruling, noting that the testimony was admissible under § 7-2 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence 57 and that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.”
State v. Outing, 3 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 4× “Code § 7-2. [5] "Beyond these general requirements regarding the admissibility of expert testimony, [t]here is a further hurdle to the admissibility of expert testimony when that testimony is based on .”
State v. Buhl, 138 A.3d 868 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 7-2. "Although expert testimony may be helpful in many instances, it is required only when the question involved goes beyond the field of ordinary knowledge and experience of the trier of fact.”
Nicholson v. Comm'r of Corr., 199 A.3d 573 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 9× “" Citing § 7-2 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence and its accompanying commentary, the court then concluded that "it does seem implied that in order to be accepted as an expert witness - or treated as an expert witness - such a witness must be offered and accepted by the court…”
State v. Holley, 175 A.3d 514 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 2× “The defendant challenged the admission of evidence regarding his injury provided by the three witnesses, claiming that, because they were not qualified as scientific or medical experts in dog bite identification, the trial court improperly admitted their testimony under § 7-2 of…”
State v. Williams, 75 A.3d 668 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 6× “64 , (2) the testimony invades the province of the jury to determine what weight to give to identifications and (3) the testimony would not assist the finder of fact as required by the § 7-2 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.”
State v. Torres, 858 A.2d 776 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “§ 7-2, testimony by experts specifically relying upon the entire text of the commentary to that rule, Your Honor.”
United Tech. Corp. v. Town of East Windsor, 807 A.2d 955 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 2× “See footnote 5 of this opinion for the text of § 12-63b. The plaintiff also claims that the trial court improperly admitted the defendant’s appraisers’ report as relevant evidence because it was based on an improperly restrictive highest and best use standard.”
State v. Leniart, 140 A.3d 1026 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “" 41 At the outset, we note that "[a] witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, education or otherwise may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise concerning scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, if the testimony will assist…”
Doe v. Thames Valley Council for Cmty. Action, Inc., 797 A.2d 1146 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “§ 7-2. 20 On July 16, 1999, the defendants filed a pretrial motion in limine to preclude Mantell’s testimony and to voir dire Mantell.”
Show all 95 citing cases →
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.