Fong v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Fong v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals

552 A.2d 431, 209 Conn. 824

DecidedNovember 10, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 552 A.2d 431 (Fong v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fong v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 552 A.2d 431, 209 Conn. 824 (Colo. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 16 Conn. App. 604, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court err in determining that a landowner whose building permit was revoked by the Planning and Zoning Appeals (the ‘Board’) could not [825]*825properly appeal the Board’s decision to the Superior Court without citing in, as a party defendant, the abutting owner who successfully challenged the permit before the Board?

Haden P. Gerrish, in support of the petition. James A. Fulton and James W. Macauley, town attorney, in opposition. Decided November 10, 1988

“2. Did the Appellate Court err in determining that an abutting owner, with notice of the appeal, did not waive his right to intervene by waiting until after the trial court rendered a judgment unfavorable to him?”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 16 Conn. App. 604, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court err in determining that a landowner whose building permit was revoked by the Planning and Zoning Appeals (the ‘Board’) could not [825]*825properly appeal the Board’s decision to the Superior Court without citing in, as a party defendant, the abutting owner who successfully challenged the permit before the Board?

Haden P. Gerrish, in support of the petition. James A. Fulton and James W. Macauley, town attorney, in opposition. Decided November 10, 1988

“2. Did the Appellate Court err in determining that an abutting owner, with notice of the appeal, did not waive his right to intervene by waiting until after the trial court rendered a judgment unfavorable to him?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 A.2d 431, 209 Conn. 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fong-v-planning-zoning-board-of-appeals-conn-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack