Collins Grp., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of New Haven, 832 A.2d 68 (Conn. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Collins Grp., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of New Haven, 832 A.2d 68 (Conn. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (39 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sempey v. Stamford Hospital (connappct, 2018-04-03)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Sempey v. Stamford Hospital
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Heim v. California Federal Bank , 78 Conn. App. 351 , 359, 828 A.2d 129 (eschewing traditional standard of review in favor of inquiry into "whether the court had 'statutory or legal authority' to strike" particular count in absence of motion), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911 , 832 A.2d 70 (2003).
discussed Cited "see" Perugini v. Giuliano
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Heim v. California Federal Bank, 78 Conn. App. 351, 367 , 828 A.2d 129 (holding *875 that absolute immunity did not apply to intentional infliction of emotional distress claim where “some of the allegations . . . [were] based on . . . conduct that occurred outside the scope of judicial proceedings”), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911 , 832 A.2d 70 (2003).
cited Cited "see" Johnson v. Pike
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. Chaves, 78 Conn. App. 342, 347 , 826 A.2d 1286 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911 , 832 A.2d 70 (2003).
discussed Cited "see" Morikawa v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Weston
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
We note that in making this argument, the defendants expressly disclaim reliance on the doctrine of municipal estoppel; see Collins Group, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 78 Conn. App. 561, 575-76 , 827 A.2d 764 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911 , 832 A.2d 68 (2003); and we express no opinion on that issue. 5 Insofar as the cases cited by the defendants discuss de minimis violations in the context of variances, such discussion almost invariably was relevant to whether the first of the two requirements for a variance was satisfied; that is, whether the variance did not affect substantially the com…
discussed Cited "see" Garlasco v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Collins Group, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 78 Conn. App. 561, 564 , 827 A.2d 764 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911 , 832 A.2d 68 (2003). “[C]ourts are not to substitute their judgment for that of the board, and . . . the decisions of local boards will not be disturbed as long as honest judgment has been reasonably and fairly made after a full hearing ....
discussed Cited "see" LaBow v. Rubin
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Heim v. California Federal Bank, 78 Conn. App. *470 351, 369, 828 A.2d 129 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911 , 832 A.2d 70 (2003); Beizer v. Goepfert, 28 Conn. App. 693, 702 , 613 A.2d 1336 (“conspiracy to defraud is generally classified as a tort claim”), cert. denied, 224 Conn. 901 , 615 A.2d 1044 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 973 , 113 S. Ct. 1416 , 122 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Conservation Com'n of Fairfield v. Red 11
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
Cortese v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 274 Conn. 411, 418 , 876 A.2d 540 (2005); see also Zoning Commission v. Lescynski, 188 Conn. 724, 731-32 , 453 A.2d 1144 (1982) (municipal estoppel applied with great caution, only when resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by agent having authority in such matters and when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations). *387 This court has recognized that “[a] claim of municipal estoppel is . . . inherently fact bound.” Collins Group, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 78 Conn. App. 561, …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Himmelstein v. Town of Windsor
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
We take the facts to be those alleged in the [pleading] that has been stricken and we construe the [pleading] in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican, 286 Conn. 548, 552-53 , 944 A.2d 329 (2008); see also Heim v. California Federal Bank, 78 Conn. App. 351, 359 , 828 A.2d 129 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911 , 832 A.2d 70 (2003); see also Practice Book § 10-39 (a).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Violano v. Fernandez (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Services, Inc., 268 Conn. 283, 292-93 , 842 A.2d 1124 (2004); see also Heim v. California Federal Bank, 78 Conn.App. 351, 358-59 , 828 A.2d 129 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 911 , 832 A.2d 70 (2003).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Zirinsky v. Zirinsky
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Heim v. California Federal Bank, 78 Conn. App. 351 , 828 A.2d 129 , cert, denied, 266 Conn. 911 , 832 A.2d 70 (2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COLLINS GROUP, INC.
v.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 18, 2003.
832 A.2d 68
David S. Hoopes, in support of the petition., Marjorie Shansky filed an opposition that was adopted by Philip R. Pastore III.
Published

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 78 Conn. App. 561 (AC 23487), is denied.

VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.