green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
North Haven Holdings Ltd. Partnership v. Planning & Zoning Commission
See Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 229 , 820 A.2d 275 (“[b]ecause the court, in interpreting the regulations, made conclusions of law . . . our review is plenary”), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Schulhof v. Zoning Board of Appeals
See Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 229 , 820 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
R & R Pool & Patio, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Just as when we employ a plenary standard of review over the Superior Court’s interpretation of local land use regulations; see Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 229 , 820 A.2d 275 (“[b]ecause the court, in interpreting the regulations, made conclusions of law . . . our review is plenary”), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003); we conclude that when a lower court interprets the terms of a variance or its conditions, our review likewise is plenary over that question of law.
cited
Cited "see"
Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals
See Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 247 , 820 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals
See Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 247 , 820 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
See, e.g., Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 257 , 820 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 177 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Trumbull Falls, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Furthermore, when [an] agency’s determination of a question of law has not previously been subject to judicial scrutiny . . . the agency is not entitled to special deference. . . . [i]£ is for the courts, and not administrative agencies, to expound and apply governing principles of law.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cunningham v. *23 Planning & Zoning Commission, 90 Conn. App. 273, 279 , 876 A.2d 1257 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 915 , 888 A.2d 83 (2005); see also Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn. App. 222, 233 , 820 A.2d 275 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Coltherst
See, e.g., State v. Vitale, 76 Conn. App. 1, 10-14 , 818 A.2d 134 (two prejudicial remarks concerning defendant’s misconduct made during testimony before jury), cert, denied, 264 Conn. 906 , 826 A.2d 178 (2003); State v. Taveras, supra, 49 Conn. App. 650 -53 (four references made to defendant’s uncharged misconduct during testimony before jury).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
JOHN E. VITALE, JR.
v.
JOHN E. VITALE, JR.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 4, 2003.
SULLIVAN, C. J., and KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition., Michael A. D’Onofrio, special public defender, in support of the petition., Michele C. Lukban, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
No opinion found.Click here to view source material.