Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-57 (2026)

Appeal

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person aggrieved by the performance of any act provided for in this subpart (D) by such local authority may take an appeal therefrom to the superior court for the judicial district within which such town or city is situated, or in accordance with the provisions of section 4-183. Any such appeal shall be privileged.

(1949 Rev., S. 2397; 1949, S. 1311d; 1967, P.A. 145; 1971, P.A. 870, S. 36; P.A. 76-436, S. 341, 681; P.A. 77-603, S. 31, 125; 77-604, S. 71, 84; P.A. 78-280, S. 1, 4, 5; P.A. 88-230, S. 1, 12; P.A. 90-98, S. 1, 2; P.A. 93-142, S. 4, 7, 8; P.A. 95-220, S. 4–6; P.A. 99-215, S. 24, 29; P.A. 02-70, S. 26.)

History: 1967 act stated that appeals are privileged; 1971 act deleted reference to superior court; P.A. 76-436 substituted superior court for court of common pleas and added reference to judicial districts, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 77-603 deleted reference to courts in counties other than Hartford county and to judicial districts and made appeals in accordance with Sec. 4-183 if act appealed from was performed by commissioner; P.A. 77-604 restored reference to counties other than Hartford and to judicial districts and qualified provision re appeals in accordance with Sec. 4-183 by specifying that venue is to be in Hartford county; P.A. 78-280 deleted reference to counties and replaced Hartford county with judicial district of Hartford-New Britain; P.A. 88-230 replaced “judicial district of Hartford-New Britain” with “judicial district of Hartford”, effective September 1, 1991; P.A. 90-98 changed effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1991, to September 1, 1993; P.A. 93-142 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1993, to September 1, 1996, effective June 14, 1993; P.A. 95-220 changed the effective date of P.A. 88-230 from September 1, 1996, to September 1, 1998, effective July 1, 1995; P.A. 99-215 replaced “judicial district of Hartford” with “judicial district of New Britain”, effective June 29, 1999; P.A. 02-70 deleted reference to any act by the commissioner and the phrase “except venue for such appeal shall be in the judicial district of New Britain if such act was performed by the commissioner” (Revisor's note: The reference to “subdivision (D)” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “subpart (D)” for clarity of reference).

See Sec. 52-192 re precedence of appeals under this section in order of trial.

No fatal objection to joinder of application for approval as to gasoline station under Sec. 14-321 and application for approval as to repair business under Sec. 14-54. 134 C. 151. Commission can go no further than apply the test incorporated in statute. 143 C. 634. Cited. 148 C. 456.

Cited 24 CA 369.

Appeal in Superior Court not in conflict with Sec. 52-7. 14 CS 450.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case: DiBonaventura v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 588 A.2d 244 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

DiBonaventura v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 588 A.2d 244 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 6× “The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the trial court pursuant to General Statutes § 14-57. 3 Paragraph four of plaintiffs’ appeal, which the board admitted in its answer, states that “[o]n or about November 1, 1988, plaintiffs, Richard DiBonaventura, Sr.”

State v. Williams, 434 S.E.2d 588 (N.C. 1993). · cites it 6× “C.G.S. § 14-57 reads as follows: Any person who, with intent to commit any felony or larceny therein, breaks and enters, either by day or by night, any building, whether inhabited or not, and opens or attempts to open any vault, safe, or other secure place by use of…”

State v. Gardner, 340 S.E.2d 701 (N.C. 1986). · cites it 2× “C.G.S. § 14-57) would be a felony regardless of the value of the property stolen.”

Mohican Valley Concrete Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 815 A.2d 145 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “Although the plaintiffs’ appeal challenges the decision of a local zoning board, their appeal is governed not by General Statutes § 8-8, but by General Statutes § 14-57. The latter statute incorporates the rules contained in General Statutes § 4-183 of the Uniform Administrative…”

One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 192 Conn. App. 275 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to General Statutes § 14-57 and the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Stat- utes § 4-183 et seq.”

One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 337 Conn. 806 (Conn. 2021). · cites it 2× “8 The plaintiff subsequently commenced this adminis- trative appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 14-57 and pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183 of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, claiming, inter alia, that the board improperly failed to conduct the suitability…”

One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 5× “Following the board’s decision to grant the location approval applica- tion, the plaintiff commenced an administrative appeal in the Superior Court pursuant to General Statutes §§ 14-57 and 4-183.15 The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the board (1) lacked subject matter…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.