Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-259
(1967, P.A. 657, S. 66; 1969, P.A. 641, S. 1; 805, S. 1, 2; 1972, P.A. 161, S. 1, 2; P.A. 77-614, S. 163, 610; P.A. 78-163, S. 1, 2; 78-228, S. 4, 8; P.A. 79-555, S. 1, 3; P.A. 82-388, S. 2; P.A. 83-437; 83-533, S. 41, 54; P.A. 84-544, S. 5, 8; P.A. 85-510, S. 16, 35; P.A. 86-366, S. 1; P.A. 87-370, S. 1, 2; P.A. 88-164, S. 1, 2; P.A. 89-323, S. 2, 4; P.A. 90-109; 90-308, S. 6, 15; P.A. 91-66 ; P.A. 93-91 , S. 1 , 2 ; P.A. 93-429 , S. 6 , 7 .; P.A. 94-216 , S. 3 , 4 ; P.A. 96-110 , S. 1 , 4 ; 96-234 , S. 1 , 2 ; June 18 Sp. Sess. P.A. 97-2 , S. 137, 165; P.A. 98-263 , S. 10 , 21 ; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 98-1 , S. 2 , 121 ; P.A. 99-124 , S. 2 -4; 99-240 , S. 25 ; 99-241 , S. 52 , 66 ; P.A. 00-99 , S. 133 , 154 ; 00-112 , S. 2 , 5 ; 00-187 , S. 71 , 75 ; 00-197 ; P.A. 01-30 , S. 1 , 4 ; 01-195 , S. 6 , 181 ; P.A. 02-140 , S. 7 ; P.A. 03-149 , S. 1 ; 03-181 , S. 1 ; 03-254 , S. 2 ; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-3, S. 31; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 63, 64; P.A. 04-53 , S. 1 ; P.A. 05-6 , S. 1 ; 05-238 , S. 1 ; 05-256 , S. 1 ; P.A. 07-73 , S. 2 (a); 07-184 , S. 18 ; P.A. 08-7 , S. 9 ; P.A. 09-114 , S. 7 ; Sept. Sp. Sess. P.A. 09-7, S. 18; P.A. 10-32 , S. 155 ; 10-34 , S. 4 , 5 ; 10-131 , S. 1 ; P.A. 11-44 , S. 32 ; 11-58 , S. 39 , 40 ; P.A. 12-147 , S. 6 ; 12-197 , S. 49 ; June 12 Sp. Sess. P.A. 12-1 , S. 35 ; P.A. 13-40 , S. 13 ; 13-247 , S. 265 , 266 ; P.A. 15-247 , S. 25 ; P.A. 16-118 , S. 6 ; P.A. 17-15 , S. 1 .)
*Note: Section 1 of public act 09-206 is special in nature and therefore has not been codified but remains in full force and effect according to its terms.
Cited. 213 Conn. 54 . Plaintiff's claim that the state acted in excess of statutory authority when it received and retained proceeds from demutualization of insurance company that provided health benefits to state employees under section because state was not entitled to the proceeds under the plan of conversion does not fall within the "excess of statutory authority" exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity; claim that section was violated is meritless, because statutory language does not imply that the legislature had a specific intent that the proceeds from demutualization would be distributed to individual employees. 296 C. 186 .
See Secs. 3-123aaa to 3-123hhh , inclusive, re partnership plan administered by Comptroller. See Sec. 38a-476b re coverage for psychotropic drugs. See Sec. 38a-564 re exclusion of municipalities from definition of "small employer".