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.
7 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rocque v. Farricielligreen2 sentences2005It does not require the court to impose a penalty that is sufficient to restore the wetlands. 39 We previously have held that, in assessing penalties under other civil penalty provisions of title 22a that provide no specific guidance to the court, the factors to be considered by the court “include, but are not limited to: (1) the size of the business involved; (2) the effect of the penalty or injunctive relief on its ability to continue operation; (3) the gravity of the violation; (4) the good faith efforts made by the business to comply with applicable statutory requirements; (5) any economic 2005It does not require the court to impose a penalty that is sufficient to restore the wetlands. 39 We previously have held that, in assessing penalties under other civil penalty provisions of title 22a that provide no specific guidance to the court, the factors to be considered by the court “include, but are not limited to: (1) the size of the business involved; (2) the effect of the penalty or injunctive relief on its ability to continue operation; (3) the gravity of the violation; (4) the good faith efforts made by the business to comply with applicable statutory requirements; (5) any economic | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carothers v. Capozziello
green
2 sentences1996In Carothers v. Capozziello, 215 Conn. 82 , 103 , 104 , 574 A.2d 1268 (1990), the Court enumerated the following factors to be considered by the court in imposing penalties for violations of environmental protection laws: (1) the size of the business involved; (2) the effect of the penalty or injunctive relief on its ability to continue operation; (3) the gravity of the violation; CT Page 873 (4) the good faith efforts made by the business to comply with applicable statutory requirements; (5) any economic benefit gained by the violations; (6) deterrence of future violations; and (7) the fair a 1996In Carothers v. Capozziello, 215 Conn. 82 , 103 , 104 , 574 A.2d 1268 (1990), the Court enumerated the following factors to be considered by the court in imposing penalties for violations of environmental protection laws: (1) the size of the business involved; (2) the effect of the penalty or injunctive relief on its ability to continue operation; (3) the gravity of the violation; CT Page 873 (4) the good faith efforts made by the business to comply with applicable statutory requirements; (5) any economic benefit gained by the violations; (6) deterrence of future violations; and (7) the fair a | 4 | 1992–1996 |
Keeney v. L & S Construction
green
2 sentences2015The court concluded that, in fashioning a remedy, it should be guided by General Statutes § 22a- 438 (a).14 The court also concluded that it should con- sider: ‘‘(1) the size of the business involved; (2) the effect of the penalty or injunctive relief on its ability to continue operation; (3) the gravity of the violation; (4) the good faith efforts made by the business to com- ply with applicable statutory requirements; (5) any eco- nomic benefit gained by the violations; (6) deterrence of future violations; and (7) the fair and equitable treat- ment of the regulated community.’’15 (Internal q 2015The court concluded that, in fashioning a remedy, it should be guided by General Statutes § 22a- 438 (a).14 The court also concluded that it should con- sider: ‘‘(1) the size of the business involved; (2) the effect of the penalty or injunctive relief on its ability to continue operation; (3) the gravity of the violation; (4) the good faith efforts made by the business to com- ply with applicable statutory requirements; (5) any eco- nomic benefit gained by the violations; (6) deterrence of future violations; and (7) the fair and equitable treat- ment of the regulated community.’’15 (Internal q | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Connecticut Building Wrecking Co. v. Carothers
green
1 sentence2001In addition the Court is entitled to take into account the defendants' history of non-compliance Kenney v. Durable Wire , 1995 Conn. Supra. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.