State v. Bennett, 789 A.2d 991 (Conn. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Bennett, 789 A.2d 991 (Conn. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case · "Although Practice Book § 10-3 (a) provides that when any claim in a complaint is grounded on a statute, the statute shall be specifically identified by its number, this rule has been construed as directory rather than mandatory."
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Biarelli v. Maple Grove Memorial Park, No. Cv98-0358403s (Sep. 12, 2002) (connsuperct, 2002-09-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Biarelli v. Maple Grove Memorial Park, No. Cv98-0358403s (Sep. 12, 2002)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
although practice book 10-3 (a) provides that when any claim in a complaint is grounded on a statute, the statute shall be specifically identified by its number, this rule has been construed as directory rather than mandatory.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Summit Saugatuck, LLC v. Water Pollution Control Authority
Conn. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
See id., 131 ; see also Children’s School, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 66 Conn. App. 615 , 617–19, 785 A.2d 607 (final judgment because remand ordered approval of special exception application subject to conditions and zoning board not required to make further evidentiary determinations), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 903 , 789 A.2d 990 (2001). 11 The court indicated in its memorandum of decision that the parties conceded at argument that § 8-30g does not apply to this case.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Zoning Commission
Conn. · 2007 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Westover Park, Inc. v. Zoning Board, 91 Conn. App. 125, 133 , 881 A.2d 412 (no final judgment when zoning board required to hear new evidence and trial court did not order approval of site plan), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 917 , 888 A.2d 86 (2005), and Kobyluck v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 70 Conn. App. 55, 57 , 796 A.2d 567 (2002) (no final judgment because “the court’s remand for a new hearing will require the board of appeals to hear new evidence and to exercise its discretion”), with Sydoriak v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 90 Conn. App. 649 , 651 n.1, 879 A.2d 494 (2005) (final judg…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Westover Park, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Stamford
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
Perhaps more importantly, the remand here expressly acknowledged the fact that further approval of the board is required under the Stamford zoning regulations. 8 As we held in Kobyluck v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 70 Conn. App. 55, 57 , 796 A.2d 567 (2002), “because the court’s remand for a new hearing will require the board of appeals to hear new evidence and to exercise its discretion, the court’s order is not an appealable final judgment.” Furthermore, the Kaufman court found significant the fact that the trial court in that case had required the commission to approve the plaintiffs …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kobyluck v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Thus, “[w]ith respect to [that] central issue, the trial court’s decision so conclude[d] the rights of the parties that further proceedings [could not] affect them.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see also Children’s School, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 66 Conn. App. 615, 617-19 , 785 A.2d 607 , cert. denied, 259 Conn. 903 , 789 A.2d 990 (2001); Wisniowski v. Planning Commission, 37 Conn. App. 303, 308-11 , 655 A.2d 1146 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 909 , 658 A.2d 981 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
FRED BENNETT
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 20, 2001.
789 A.2d 991
Auden Grogins, special public defender, in support of the petition., Joy K. Fausey, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 65%
Citer courts: Connecticut Superior Court (1)

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 66 Conn. App. 901 (AC 20429), is denied.

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