Conn. Code. Evid. 2-2
COMMENTARY
(a) Request of party.
Subsection (a) states what appeared to be the preferred practice at common law. Drabik v. East Lyme, 234 Conn. 390, 398, 662 A.2d 118 (1995); State ex rel. Capurso v. Flis, 144 Conn. 473, 477-78, 133 A.2d 901 (1957); Nichols v. Nichols, 126 Conn. 614, 622, 13 A.2d 591 (1940).
(b) Court's initiative.
The first sentence is consistent with existing Connecticut law. E.g., Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Rivkin, 150 Conn. 618, 622, 192 A.2d 539 (1963). The dichotomous rule in the second sentence represents the common-law view as expressed in Moore v. Moore, 173 Conn. 120, 121-22, 376 A.2d 1085 (1977). Although the court in Moore suggested that "it may be the better practice to give parties an opportunity to be heard'' on the propriety of taking judicial notice of accurate and established facts; id., 122; it did not so require. Accord Guerriero v. Galasso, 144 Conn. 600, 605, 136 A.2d 497 (1957).