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.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2000 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cocivi v. Plan & Zoning Commissiongreen1 sentence1991"Without proper public notice, zoning authority actions are null and void." Id. at 707 (citations omitted); see, e.g., Aurora v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 623 (1966) (notice of public hearing that was not published at the proper intervals is held to be fatally defective, depriving the board of jurisdiction to hear the application and rendering its decision invalid.) It is noted that the plaintiffs have not raised the legal insufficiency of the notice of public hearing at any time during this appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Aurora v. Zoning Board of Appealsgreen1 sentence1991"Without proper public notice, zoning authority actions are null and void." Id. at 707 (citations omitted); see, e.g., Aurora v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 153 Conn. 623 (1966) (notice of public hearing that was not published at the proper intervals is held to be fatally defective, depriving the board of jurisdiction to hear the application and rendering its decision invalid.) It is noted that the plaintiffs have not raised the legal insufficiency of the notice of public hearing at any time during this appeal. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Neuger v. Zoning Board
green
2 sentences1983It is adequate if it fairly and sufficiently apprises those who may be affected of the nature and character of the action proposed, so as to make possible intelligent preparation for participation in the hearing.’ Shrobar v. Jensen, 158 Conn. 202, 207 , 257 A.2d 806 [1969]; Neuger v. Zoning Board, 145 Conn. 625, 630 , 145 A.2d 738 [1958].” (Emphasis added.) We see no reason why the legislature would intend that notice of the decision be of a lesser quality than the notice of public hearing. 1983It is adequate if it fairly and sufficiently apprises those who may be affected of the nature and character of the action proposed, so as to make possible intelligent preparation for participation in the hearing.’ Shrobar v. Jensen, 158 Conn. 202, 207 , 257 A.2d 806 [1969]; Neuger v. Zoning Board, 145 Conn. 625, 630 , 145 A.2d 738 [1958].” (Emphasis added.) We see no reason why the legislature would intend that notice of the decision be of a lesser quality than the notice of public hearing. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Shrobar v. Jensen
green
2 sentences1983It is adequate if it fairly and sufficiently apprises those who may be affected of the nature and character of the action proposed, so as to make possible intelligent preparation for participation in the hearing.’ Shrobar v. Jensen, 158 Conn. 202, 207 , 257 A.2d 806 [1969]; Neuger v. Zoning Board, 145 Conn. 625, 630 , 145 A.2d 738 [1958].” (Emphasis added.) We see no reason why the legislature would intend that notice of the decision be of a lesser quality than the notice of public hearing. 1983It is adequate if it fairly and sufficiently apprises those who may be affected of the nature and character of the action proposed, so as to make possible intelligent preparation for participation in the hearing.’ Shrobar v. Jensen, 158 Conn. 202, 207 , 257 A.2d 806 [1969]; Neuger v. Zoning Board, 145 Conn. 625, 630 , 145 A.2d 738 [1958].” (Emphasis added.) We see no reason why the legislature would intend that notice of the decision be of a lesser quality than the notice of public hearing. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Whittaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
1 sentence2000CT Page 4788 -the action of the Commission, in approving the application, resulted in the creation of an illegal lot. — the Commission approved said application without reference to, or regard for, the applicable standards. — the entire application procedure, including the conduct of the public hearing, lacked fundamental fairness to those opposing the application III Judicial review of the Commission's decision is limited to a determination of whether the decision was arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion, Whitaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 179 Conn. 650 , 654 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Scovil v. Planning & Zoning Commission
green
1 sentence1999Scovil v. Planning Zoning Commission , 155 Conn. 12 , 17 (1967). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.