Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-9 (2026)
Representatives in Congress. Districts
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
For the purpose of representation in the Congress of the United States, there shall be elected in the manner provided by law one representative from each of the five congressional districts.
(1949 Rev., S. 989; 1953, S. 509d; April, 1964, P.A. 2, S. 1; P.A. 03-170, S. 2.)
History: 1964 act provided for six congressional districts instead of five congressional districts and one representative at large; P.A. 03-170 changed number of congressional districts from six to five and deleted “into which the state shall be divided, as follows”, effective June 26, 2003.
Cited. 14 CS 421.
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: Schenck v. Pelkey, 405 A.2d 665 (Conn. 1978).
Schenck v. Pelkey, 405 A.2d 665 (Conn. 1978). “, § 9-9. It requires that the seller have reason to know of a buyer’s particular purpose and of the buyer’s reliance on the seller’s skill and judgment, as well as actual reliance in fact by the buyer.”
Hinchliffe v. Am. Motors Corp., 440 A.2d 810 (Conn. 1981). “See generally White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 9-9. Under the fourth count of the complaint, the plaintiffs produced evidence sufficient to support *621 a finding the the defendant American Motors Corporation expressly warranted the vehicle under a manufacturer’s…”
Stand. Petroleum Co. v. Faugno Acquisition, LLC, 191 A.3d 147 (Conn. 2018). “8 In 2015, after the plaintiffs had obtained compliance with discovery requests, they moved for orders certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Practice Book § 9-9. 9 The defendant filed an opposition, which **46 included a supporting affidavit by its vice president.”
Rodriguez v. Kaiaffa, LLC, 337 Conn. 248 (Conn. 2020). “See Practice Book § 9-9 (a) (4) (‘‘[w]hen appropriate . . .”
State v. Stonybrook, Inc., 181 A.2d 601 (Conn. 1962). “Once the government relinquished jurisdiction over the units, governmental immunity ceased.”
Donnelly v. Meskill, 345 F. Supp. 962 (D. Conn. 1972). “§ 9-9, Public Act 2 § 1 (1964), and for further delineation of the rights of the parties.”
Collier v. Adar Hartford Realty, LLC, 349 Conn. 822 (Conn. 2024). “permit the partial class action mechanism’’ and creation of sub- classes); see also Practice Book § 9-9 (a) (4) (‘‘[w]hen appropriate, (A) an action may be brought or main- tained as a class action with respect to particular issues, or (B) a class may be divided into subclasses…”
Woodford v. HRG Mgmt., LLC (Conn. App. Ct. 2026). “3 Specifically, the plaintiff alleged 1 Prior to certification as a class pursuant to Practice Book § 9-9, a complaint alleging claims on behalf of a class is commonly referred to as a “putative” class action.”
Vasquez v. Sliders Restaurant Grp., LLC (Conn. App. Ct. 2026). “4 Specifically, the 1 Prior to certification as a class pursuant to Practice Book § 9-9, a complaint alleging claims on behalf of a class is commonly referred to as a “putative” class action.”
Fenton v. Harper (Conn. App. Ct. 2026). “3 Specifically, the plaintiff 1 Prior to certification as a class pursuant to Practice Book § 9-9, a complaint alleging claims on behalf of a class is commonly referred to as a “putative” class action.”
Farias v. Rodriguez (Conn. App. Ct. 2026). “3 Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the 1 Prior to certification as a class pursuant to Practice Book § 9-9, a complaint alleging claims on behalf of a class is commonly referred to as a “putative” class action.”
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.