Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 09 — ELECTIONS · Chapter 141 — General Provisions
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-8 (2026)

Penalty for false statement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who makes a false statement in any statement required to be signed under the penalties of false statement under this title and, except as otherwise provided by law, any person who signs the name of another to any such statement shall be guilty of false statement, which shall be deemed to have been committed in the town where such statement is filed and shall be subject to the penalties provided for false statement.

(1949, Rev., S. 1149; 1953, 1955, S. 639d; 1955, S. 621d; 1957, P.A. 442, S. 12; 517, S. 10; 1971, P.A. 871, S. 64.)

History: 1971 act substituted “false statement” for “perjury” where appearing and following “penalties provided” replaced “in section 53-143” with “for false statement”.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · 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 19× “ed to establish the elements of commonality and typicality, as required to bring a class action under *18 Practice Book § 9-7 (2) and (3); 5 (2) the trial court failed to consider whether questions of law or fact common to the members of the certified class predominated over…”
Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 880 A.2d 106 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 20× “In Collins , we concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as to three subparagraphs of the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint (complaint), namely, subparagraphs 20 (b), (g) and (m), because it had failed…”
Stand. Petroleum Co. v. Faugno Acquisition, LLC, 191 A.3d 147 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 7× “Largely in reliance on the facts and legal issues cited in that analysis, the court also concluded that each of the policy considerations under Practice Book § 9-8 weighed in favor of allowing the action to proceed as a class action.”
Rodriguez v. Kaiaffa, LLC, 337 Conn. 248 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 7× “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…”
Town of New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Auth., 970 A.2d 592 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 2× ““Second, if the foregoing criteria are satisfied, the court then must evaluate whether the certification requirements of Practice Book § 9-8 are satisfied. These requirements are: (1) predominance—that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over…”
MacOmber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 894 A.2d 240 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 2× ““Second, if the foregoing criteria are satisfied, the court then must evaluate whether the certification requirements of Practice Book § 9-8 are satisfied. These *628 requirements are: (1) predominance—that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate…”
Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins., 947 A.2d 320 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 2× ““Second, if the foregoing criteria are satisfied, the court then must evaluate whether the certification requirements of Practice Book § 9-8 are satisfied. These requirements are: (1) predominance—that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over…”
Neighborhood Builders, Inc. v. Town of Madison, 986 A.2d 278 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 4× “” 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…”
Butts v. Bysiewicz, 5 A.3d 932 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 9-8 (“[a]ny person who makes a false statement in any statement required to be signed under the penalties of false statement under this title and, except as otherwise provided by law, any person who signs the name of another to any such statement shall be…”
Palmer v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 940 A.2d 742 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 2× “The trial court concluded, however, that the plaintiffs had failed to meet the predominance requirement for class certification under Practice Book § 9-8. 4 Specifically, the trial court determined that the evidence required to prove liability as to each member of the class was…”
Bouchard v. State Emps. Ret. Comm'n, 178 A.3d 1023 (Conn. 2018). “Count two, captioned "Declaratory Judgment for Class," incorporated the allegations in count one and alleged that, in addition to bringing their individual administrative appeal, the plaintiffs brought this action as a class action under Practice Book § 9-8. The plaintiffs…”
Rivera v. Vets. Mem'l Med. Ctr., 818 A.2d 731 (Conn. 2003). “” Practice Book § 9-8 provides: “An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of Section 9-7 are satisfied and the judicial authority finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only…”
Show all 20 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.