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 1992–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gil v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency
green
2 sentences1992Id. 415 . 1992Gil v. Inland Wetlands Watercourses Agency, supra, 415 . | 2 | 1992–1992 |
A & F Construction Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
neutral
2 sentences2001See Francini v. Zoning Board of Appeals , supra, 228 Conn. 794 -95 (affirming the trial court's ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove his taking claim because of his failure to demonstrate that "the board's denial of his application for a variance . . . has deprived him of any reasonable use of his property"); A F Construction Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 60 Conn. App. 273 , CT Page 1231 279-80, 759 A.2d 101 (2000) (affirming the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's taking claim because the plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proving that the zoning board would not allow "any 2001See Francini v. Zoning Board of Appeals , supra, 228 Conn. 794 -95 (affirming the trial court's ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove his taking claim because of his failure to demonstrate that "the board's denial of his application for a variance . . . has deprived him of any reasonable use of his property"); A F Construction Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 60 Conn. App. 273 , CT Page 1231 279-80, 759 A.2d 101 (2000) (affirming the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's taking claim because the plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proving that the zoning board would not allow "any | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Smithfield Concerned Citizens for Fair Zoning v. The Town of Smithfield, Etc.
green
1 sentence1999The Supreme Court held that a regulatory taking claim invoking either of the two clauses was unripe until the governmental entity charged with implementing the regulations had reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue." Smithfield Concerned Citizens v. Town of Smithfield , 907 F.2d 239 , 241 (1st Cir. 1990). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Cioffoletti v. Planning & Zoning Commission
green
1 sentence1995This matter appears to have been settled by the Supreme Court in Chioffoletti, 209 Conn. 544 (1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.