Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1955–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Daleygreen1 sentence2022Following its repeal, § 14-55 ‘‘must be considered . . . as if it never existed.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 337 Conn. 821 ; see also State v. Daley, 29 Conn. 272, 275 (1860) (‘‘[t]he effect of [the] repeal was, for the most obvious reason, that the law, as to any proceedings under it which were not past and closed, must be considered as if it had never existed’’). 28 In that respect, the board’s referral more aptly is characterized as an unlawful procedure in contravention of § 4-183 (j) (3). 29 That correspondence was re | 1 | 1 |
Kelley v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION OF CORRECTIONgreen1 sentence2006Finally, Kelley also recognized that this court is not bound to hear claims not distinctly raised and decided by the habeas court; see id., 335 ; and it cannot be said that the petitioner’s variance claim distinctly was raised. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eagan v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1999Egan v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 20 Conn. App. 561 , 564 (1990). 1998Eagan v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 20 Conn. App. 561 , 564 (1990); Nelson v. Zoning Board of Appeals , No. 31 09 62, (Super.Ct., J.D. of Danbury, June 30, 1993) (1993 Ct. Sup. (LOIS) 6367, 6370-71). | 6 | 1993–1999 |
Pike v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
1 sentence2007Id., 272 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
1 sentence1995Under General Statutes § 8-6 (3) a variance can be granted only if it is shown not to "affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan and adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance causes unusual hardship CT Page 7520-R unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning plan." Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 174 Conn. 323 (1978). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ferguson v. Zoning Board of Appeals
neutral
1 sentence1994In concluding that the chairman had appeared before the ZBA in a representative capacity for the nieghbors [neighbors] opposing the plaintiff's variance in violation of 8-11 , the court stated: "[i]n . . . the instant case, the official involved made plain, by either [his] ruling or [his] testimony, [his] interest, preference or favoritism toward one of the litigants, in advance of their appearance or involvement with a different municipal agency which held final powers of decision over the same problem." Id., 40 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Winsor v. Hawkins
neutral
2 sentences1993It is now too late to raise such a point on appeal.” Winsor v. Hawkins, 130 Conn. 669, 670 , 37 A.2d 222 (1944); DiLieto v. Better Homes Insulation Co., supra. The defendant here attempted to raise the issue of the variance at the hearing in damages before the state trial referee. 1993It is now too late to raise such a point on appeal.” Winsor v. Hawkins, 130 Conn. 669, 670 , 37 A.2d 222 (1944); DiLieto v. Better Homes Insulation Co., supra. The defendant here attempted to raise the issue of the variance at the hearing in damages before the state trial referee. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Miclon v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
1 sentence1993While a zoning board of appeals cannot grant a variance for a use which is inconsistent with a general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance or which impairs the integrity of the comprehensive plan, Whittaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 656; Miclon v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 173 Conn. 420 , 423-424 , if the use allowed by the variance is consistent with the other uses in the area, the first part of the variance test is complied with. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Service Realty Corporation v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1955An exception . . . allows him to put his property to a use which the enactment expressly permits.” Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 140 Conn. 527, 532 , 102 A.2d 316 ; Service Realty Corporation v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 141 Conn. 632, 636 , 109 A.2d 256 . 1955An exception . . . allows him to put his property to a use which the enactment expressly permits.” Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 140 Conn. 527, 532 , 102 A.2d 316 ; Service Realty Corporation v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 141 Conn. 632, 636 , 109 A.2d 256 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences1955An exception . . . allows him to put his property to a use which the enactment expressly permits.” Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 140 Conn. 527, 532 , 102 A.2d 316 ; Service Realty Corporation v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 141 Conn. 632, 636 , 109 A.2d 256 . 1955An exception . . . allows him to put his property to a use which the enactment expressly permits.” Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 140 Conn. 527, 532 , 102 A.2d 316 ; Service Realty Corporation v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 141 Conn. 632, 636 , 109 A.2d 256 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.