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.
6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Med-Trans of Connecticut, Inc. v. Department of Public Health & Addiction Servicesgreen2 sentences2008General Statutes § 22a-16. 8 Although the plaintiffs also contend that the trial court improperly failed to apply the zone of interests test; see Med-Trans of Connecticut, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services, 242 Conn. 152, 160 , 699 A.2d 142 (1997) (stating zone of interest test); United Cable Television Services Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 235 Conn. 334, 344-45 , 663 A.2d 1011 (1995) (same); it is clear that this contention is made only in furtherance of their claim that unique injury is not required for standing. 2008General Statutes § 22a-16. 8 Although the plaintiffs also contend that the trial court improperly failed to apply the zone of interests test; see Med-Trans of Connecticut, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services, 242 Conn. 152, 160 , 699 A.2d 142 (1997) (stating zone of interest test); United Cable Television Services Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 235 Conn. 334, 344-45 , 663 A.2d 1011 (1995) (same); it is clear that this contention is made only in furtherance of their claim that unique injury is not required for standing. | 1 | 1 |
Bongiorno Supermarket, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Stamfordgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Bongiorno Supermarket, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 266 Conn. 531 , 537 n.10, 833 A.2d 883 (2003) (noting plaintiffs’ claim that trial court improperly had failed to apply zone of interests test but concluding that test was not pertinent to dispositive issue in appeal, namely, aggrievement); see also Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 , 733 n.5, 92 S. Ct. 1361 , 31 L. 2008See, e.g., Bongiorno Supermarket, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 266 Conn. 531 , 537 n.10, 833 A.2d 883 (2003) (noting plaintiffs’ claim that trial court improperly had failed to apply zone of interests test but concluding that test was not pertinent to dispositive issue in appeal, namely, aggrievement); see also Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 , 733 n.5, 92 S. Ct. 1361 , 31 L. | 1 | 1 |
Sierra Club v. Mortongreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Bongiorno Supermarket, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 266 Conn. 531 , 537 n.10, 833 A.2d 883 (2003) (noting plaintiffs’ claim that trial court improperly had failed to apply zone of interests test but concluding that test was not pertinent to dispositive issue in appeal, namely, aggrievement); see also Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 , 733 n.5, 92 S. Ct. 1361 , 31 L. 2008See, e.g., Bongiorno Supermarket, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 266 Conn. 531 , 537 n.10, 833 A.2d 883 (2003) (noting plaintiffs’ claim that trial court improperly had failed to apply zone of interests test but concluding that test was not pertinent to dispositive issue in appeal, namely, aggrievement); see also Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 , 733 n.5, 92 S. Ct. 1361 , 31 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
green
2 sentences2000Contrary to the defendants’ assertion, the repeated citations by our Supreme Court of United States Supreme Court decisions on standing demonstrate that the zone of interests test in Connecticut does not differ from the federal test articulated in Assn. of Data Processing Services Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 , 90 S. Ct. 827 , 25 L. 2000Contrary to the defendants’ assertion, the repeated citations by our Supreme Court of United States Supreme Court decisions on standing demonstrate that the zone of interests test in Connecticut does not differ from the federal test articulated in Assn. of Data Processing Services Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153 , 90 S. Ct. 827 , 25 L. | 3 | 1998–2000 |
Light Rigging Co. v. Department of Public Utility Control
green
2 sentences1999Id., 177 . 1998Id., 177 . | 2 | 1998–1999 |
Lewis v. PLANNING AND ZONING COM'N
green
1 sentence2025Regarding statutory aggrievement, this court has long held that a party’s legal interest must fall within the ‘‘zone of interests’’ of the statute at issue for that ‘‘inter- est [to be] protected by that legislation.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) Id. ‘‘It has been [noted] that the zone of interests test bears a family resemblance to the scope of the risk doctrine in the law of torts. . . . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United Cable Television Services Corp. v. Department of Public Utility Control
green
2 sentences2008General Statutes § 22a-16. 8 Although the plaintiffs also contend that the trial court improperly failed to apply the zone of interests test; see Med-Trans of Connecticut, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services, 242 Conn. 152, 160 , 699 A.2d 142 (1997) (stating zone of interest test); United Cable Television Services Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 235 Conn. 334, 344-45 , 663 A.2d 1011 (1995) (same); it is clear that this contention is made only in furtherance of their claim that unique injury is not required for standing. 2008General Statutes § 22a-16. 8 Although the plaintiffs also contend that the trial court improperly failed to apply the zone of interests test; see Med-Trans of Connecticut, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health & Addiction Services, 242 Conn. 152, 160 , 699 A.2d 142 (1997) (stating zone of interest test); United Cable Television Services Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 235 Conn. 334, 344-45 , 663 A.2d 1011 (1995) (same); it is clear that this contention is made only in furtherance of their claim that unique injury is not required for standing. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Connecticut State Medical Society v. Connecticut Board of Examiners in Podiatry
green
2 sentences1998In Connecticut State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, 203 Conn. 295 , 524 A.2d 636 (1987), the plaintiff physician alleged unfair or illegal competition in his appeal from a declaratory ruling of the board of examiners in podiatry regarding the scope of podiatry practice in the state. 1998In Connecticut State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, 203 Conn. 295 , 524 A.2d 636 (1987), the plaintiff physician alleged unfair or illegal competition in his appeal from a declaratory ruling of the board of examiners in podiatry regarding the scope of podiatry practice in the state. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.