The warning of each town meeting, and of each meeting of a city, borough, school district or other public community or of an ecclesiastical society, shall specify the objects for which such meeting is to be held. Notice of a town meeting shall be given by posting, upon a signpost or other exterior place near the office of the town clerk of such town and at such other place or places as may be designated as hereinafter provided, a printed or written warning signed by the selectmen, or a majority of them, and by publishing a like warning in a newspaper published in such town or having a circulation therein, such posting and such publication to be at least five days previous to holding the meeting, including the day that notice is given and any Sunday and any legal holiday which may intervene between such posting and such publication and the day of holding such meeting, but not including the day of holding such meeting; but any town may, at an annual meeting, designate any other place or places, in addition to the signpost or other exterior place, at which such warnings shall be set up. The selectmen shall, on or before the day of such meeting, cause a copy of each such warning to be left with the town clerk, who shall record the same. Notice of a meeting of a city or borough shall be given by posting, upon a signpost or other exterior place nearest to the office of the clerk of such city or borough or at such place or places as may be designated by special charter provision, a written or printed warning signed by the mayor or clerk in the case of a city or by the warden or clerk in the case of a borough, and by publishing a like warning in a newspaper published within the limits of such city or borough, or having a circulation therein, at least five days previous to holding the meeting, including the day that notice is given and any Sunday and any legal holiday which may intervene between such posting and such publication and the day of holding such meeting, but not including the day of holding such meeting.
(1949 Rev., S. 493; 1953, S. 211d; 1963, P.A. 212; P.A. 84-146, S. 1.)
History: 1963 act deleted provisions for posting warnings on signposts in the municipality and substituted posting on signpost or other exterior place nearest clerk's office; P.A. 84-146 made technical grammatical change.
Both warning and notice are requisite for legal meeting. 4 D. 62; 5 C. 391; 37 C. 392; 44 C. 157; 52 C. 483; 58 C. 488; 60 C. 165; 121 U.S. 121. Warning is to be affirmatively proved. 8 C. 247. Town clerk's record that meeting was legally warned is prima facie evidence thereof. 25 C. 555; see 121 U.S. 121. The hour of meeting presumed to be a proper hour. 13 C. 227. The notice should fairly state the purpose of meeting. Id.; 15 C. 327; 36 C. 83; 53 C. 577; 58 C. 488. Town may act within the limits of the warning. 55 C. 245. The statute prescribed method of notice, while by its vote the society prescribed more general notice; held that the society vote was merely directory. 15 C. 327. A validating act of the General Assembly cures all defects incident to the act validated. 52 C. 45. “Soldier's bounty” validating acts, so held. 32 C. 47; 37 C. 225. Town has no inherent legal powers; warning needs no address, but addressed “to the inhabitants” is valid. 32 C. 47. Clerk's certificate imports verity only as to matters of lawful consideration. 44 C. 158; 51 C. 22. 5 days before the meeting means 5 days before the day of meeting. Id. A meeting illegally warned voted a guarantee; a subsequent legal meeting voted “to let conditions of former vote remain as they now stand”; held not to be a ratification. Id.; see 121 U.S. 121. Town is not estopped by erroneous record of town clerk, as against one acting under it. Id. Meeting voted to adjourn “to Wednesday evening”; held to mean the next Wednesday. 52 C. 45. Unless restrictive in terms, a subsequent board of selectmen may carry out the purpose of a vote. Id., 498. As to what constitutes an appropriation. 58 C. 486. Town may by acquiescence ratify unauthorized act of selectmen. 59 C. 447. General notice sufficient as to action required by law. 77 C. 197. Notice published in newspaper 4 days before meeting insufficient. 83 C. 331. Warning to consider water company's proposition in regard to laying water main held to cover vote to contract with company for laying the water main. 97 C. 636. Unnecessary for warning to state number of grand jurors to be elected. 111 C. 341. Cited. 152 C. 237; 185 C. 556; 234 C. 513.
Warning advising voters “to determine what is to be done about the addition of a room to the ... school” did not warn of the action taken rescinding votes passed at a prior meeting authorizing the building of an addition to the school. 13 CS 116.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
61
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case:
State v. Bruny, 342 Conn. 169 (Conn. 2022).
State v. Bruny, 342 Conn. 169 (Conn. 2022).
· cites it 15× “s discretion in admitting the testimony of four lay witnesses, T, H, M, and S, identifying the defendant as one of the persons depicted in the surveillance footage of the interior and exterior of the nightclub where the shooting occurred insofar as their testimony improperly…”
State v. Beavers, 963 A.2d 956 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 7× “The defendant also claims that the trial court improperly admitted the state arson investigator’s opinion testimony concerning the ultimate issue in this case, namely, whether the fire was set intentionally, in violation of § 7-3 (a) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.”
State v. Finan, 843 A.2d 630 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 12× “2d 452 (1984), and § 7-3 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.”
State v. Johnson, 958 A.2d 713 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “II The defendant next claims that the trial court improperly permitted Lee to testify that the Quinones, Jimenez *458 and Ford murders were “serial killings” connected by the presence of the defendant’s DNA at each crime scene because that testimony (1) embraced an ultimate…”
State v. Reynolds, 983 A.2d 874 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 4× “At that time, the court did not rule on the admissibility of that *284 portion of the report but stated that § 7-3 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence 2 regarding expert testimony on the ultimate issue to be determined by the jury applied.”
In Re Melody L., 962 A.2d 81 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 2× “In response, the department asserts that Rogers’ testimony as to the ultimate issue in the case was consistent with § 7-3 (a) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence and common practice in Juvenile Court proceedings.”
State v. Sumler, 199 Conn. App. 187 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 5× “The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting D’s testimony identifying the defendant in the surveillance video from the grocery store; contrary to the defendant’s contention that D’s testimony consti- tuted her opinion on an ultimate issue reserved to the jury,…”
State v. Gonzalez, 864 A.2d 847 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 2× “[19] Practice Book § 5-5 provides in relevant part: "Whenever an objection to the admission of evidence is made, counsel shall state the grounds upon which it is claimed or upon which objection is made, succinctly and in such form as he or she desires it to go upon the record,…”
State v. Davis, 344 Conn. 122 (Conn. 2022).
· cites it 7× “2d 187 (2005), which held that the ultimate issue rule set forth in § 7-3 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence7 precludes the admission of lay opinion testimony identifying a defendant in video surveillance footage when that iden- tification embraces an ultimate issue in the case.”
State v. Hazard, 201 Conn. App. 46 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 3× “s 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 improper opin- ion on the…”
State v. Lopez, 173 A.3d 485 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “In addition, § 7-3(a) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides in relevant part that "[t]estimony in the form of an opinion is inadmissible if it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact .”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-3(a) — 3 cases
State v. Lopez, 173 A.3d 485 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“In addition, § 7-3(a) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides in relevant part that "[t]estimony in the form of an opinion is inadmissible if it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact .”
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.