Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-7 (2026)

Charter provisions not affected

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No provision of this title or the sections listed in section 9-1 shall be construed to repeal any charter provision in existence on May 14, 1953, relative to the election, term of office or powers or duties of any municipal officer or to the manner of warning or conducting any municipal meeting or any election, but the powers and duties of such officers shall remain as provided in such charter.

(1953, S. 508d.)

Section construed in light of intent of legislature in enacting Sec. 9-167a; charter provision superseded by Sec. 9-167a. 28 CS 403.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 836 A.2d 1124 (Conn. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 836 A.2d 1124 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 29× “On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in granting, in part, the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification because: (1) the plaintiffs had failed to establish the elements of commonality and typicality, as required to bring a class action…”

Town of New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth., 970 A.2d 592 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 11× “contracts between the parties and the defendant’s willingness to rebate a portion of the settlement proceeds; (2) imposed a constructive trust because the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment theory was not cognizable as a matter of law and their interest in an identifiable res was…”

Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 880 A.2d 106 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 20× “The defendant now appeals from the trial court’s certification order, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion *315 because: (1) the plaintiffs did not prove that the commonality and adequacy-of-representation requirements of Practice Book § 9-7 4 were satisfied with…”

Stand. Petroleum Co. v. Faugno Acquisition, LLC, 191 A.3d 147 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 12× “" The court addressed separately each requirement for class certification under Practice Book § 9-7, concluding that each had been satisfied.”

Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins., 947 A.2d 320 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 5× ““A trial court must undertake a rigorous analysis to determine whether the plaintiffs have borne the burden of demonstrating that the class certification requirements of Practice Book §§ 9-7 7 and *213 9-8 8 have been met. ..”

MacOmber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 894 A.2d 240 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 4× “We therefore proceed to the defendants’ claims on appeal on the basis of that record, mindful, however, that presumptions arising from the lack of discovery cannot fill any gaps that might otherwise exist. I We first set forth the standard of review governing class certification…”

Cook-Littman v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Fairfield, 184 A.3d 253 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 8× “3 (B) of the charter is "grandfathered explicitly by § 9-7" because it existed prior to 1953, whereas the plaintiffs argue that § 9-7 is inapplicable because the charter has been amended six times and now "differs significantly from the charter in effect in 1953, including being…”

Rodriguez v. Kaiaffa, LLC, 337 Conn. 248 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 10× “Accordingly, the court concluded that each require- ment for class certification—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation—set forth in the applicable rule of practice (§ 9-7) had been satisfied and that the predominance and superiority considerations…”

Palmer v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 940 A.2d 742 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 5× “In its memorandum of decision, the court found that the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements of numerosity, *465 commonality, typicality and adequate representation enumerated in Practice Book § 9-7. The trial court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs had failed to meet…”

Rivera v. Vets. Mem'l Med. Ctr., 818 A.2d 731 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 5× “Compare Practice Book §§ 9-7 10 and 9-8 11 with Fed. R. Civ. P.”

Neighborhood Builders, Inc. v. Town of Madison, 986 A.2d 278 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 7× “” 8 On appeal, the town initially claimed in its preliminary statement of the issues that the trial court improperly had granted the motion because the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the applicable requirements for class certification in Practice Book § 9-7 9 and Practice Book…”

Macomber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 804 A.2d 180 (Conn. 2002). “The trial court will have to make that determination pursuant to the standards set forth in Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8. We, therefore, refer to Macomber and Huaman as the plaintiffs.”

Show all 31 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.