must consider three factors in Connecticut

2001The court reasoned: “In order to determine whether a statutory scheme violates the equal protection clause, a court must consider three factors: ‘the character of the classification in question; the individual interests affected by the classification; and the governmental interests asserted in support of the classification.’ Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 335 , 92 S. Ct. 995 , 31 L.

2001The court reasoned: “In order to determine whether a statutory scheme violates the equal protection clause, a court must consider three factors: ‘the character of the classification in question; the individual interests affected by the classification; and the governmental interests asserted in support of the classification.’ Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 335 , 92 S. Ct. 995 , 31 L.

1997Ordinarily, in order to determine whether a statutory scheme violates the equal protection clause, "a court must consider three factors: `the character of the classification in question; the individual interests affected by the classification; and the governmental interests asserted in support of the classification.' Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 335 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972)." Bruno v. Civil Service Commission, 192 Conn. 335 , 345 , 472 A.2d 328 (1984).

1997Ordinarily, in order to determine whether a statutory scheme violates the equal protection clause, "a court must consider three factors: `the character of the classification in question; the individual interests affected by the classification; and the governmental interests asserted in support of the classification.' Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 , 335 , 92 S.Ct. 995 , 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972)." Bruno v. Civil Service Commission, 192 Conn. 335 , 345 , 472 A.2d 328 (1984).

2015Under this analysis, the court must consider three factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the pro- cedures used, and the probable value, if any, of addi- tional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the [g]overnment’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561 , 571– 72,

2015Under this analysis, the court must consider three factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the pro- cedures used, and the probable value, if any, of addi- tional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the [g]overnment’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561 , 571– 72,

2001To determine whether a current activity is within the scope of an authorized nonconforming use, the court must consider three factors: (1) the extent to which the current use reflects the nature and purpose of the original use; (2) the differences in character, nature, and kind of the uses involved; and (3) any substantial difference in impact upon the neighborhood, Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut , 234 Conn. 221 , 236 (1995).

1996Pet v. Department of Health Services, supra, [364,] quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, 335 .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 218 Conn. 646, 661-62 , 591 A.2d 101 (1991).

1996Pet v. Department of Health Services, supra, [364,] quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, 335 .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 218 Conn. 646, 661-62 , 591 A.2d 101 (1991).