Frechette v. Branford Planning Zoning Commission

Connecticut Superior Court

Frechette v. Branford Planning Zoning Commission

324 A.2d 773, 31 Conn. Super. Ct. 129, 31 Conn. Supp. 129, 1974 Conn. Super. LEXIS 238

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 3, 1974

DocketFile No. 92973

StatusPublished

This text of 324 A.2d 773 (Frechette v. Branford Planning Zoning Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frechette v. Branford Planning Zoning Commission, 324 A.2d 773, 31 Conn. Super. Ct. 129, 31 Conn. Supp. 129, 1974 Conn. Super. LEXIS 238 (Colo. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant has brought to the attention of this court the case of Hartford v. PublicUtilities Commission, 30 Conn. Sup. 299, in which a distinction is made between an ordinary administrative appeal as being record oriented and an ordinary civil action as being evidence oriented. The conclusion of the cited case is that the rules of discovery do not apply to an administrative appeal and that such an appeal is not a "civil action" as that phrase is used in § 52-197 of the General Statutes and in § 166 of the Practice Book.

The plaintiff contends that this is not an ordinary administrative appeal because of paragraphs in the complaint which allege that in a prior action in the New Haven Superior Court the constitutionality of the actions of the defendant has been questioned, that the actions of the defendant could only be the result of prejudice and discrimination against the plaintiff, that the defendant is illegally appointed and did not comply with the statutes, and that the zoning ordinance is invalid because of a lack of a comprehensive plan. *Page 130

Although these contentions of the plaintiff are not ordinary, a careful study of Hartford v. PublicUtilities Commission, supra, brings this court to the conclusion that discovery is not the proper remedy for the plaintiff to prove his allegations.

The defendant's objection to the motion for disclosure is sustained.

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

The defendant has brought to the attention of this court the case of Hartford v. PublicUtilities Commission, 30 Conn. Sup. 299, in which a distinction is made between an ordinary administrative appeal as being record oriented and an ordinary civil action as being evidence oriented. The conclusion of the cited case is that the rules of discovery do not apply to an administrative appeal and that such an appeal is not a "civil action" as that phrase is used in § 52-197 of the General Statutes and in § 166 of the Practice Book.

The plaintiff contends that this is not an ordinary administrative appeal because of paragraphs in the complaint which allege that in a prior action in the New Haven Superior Court the constitutionality of the actions of the defendant has been questioned, that the actions of the defendant could only be the result of prejudice and discrimination against the plaintiff, that the defendant is illegally appointed and did not comply with the statutes, and that the zoning ordinance is invalid because of a lack of a comprehensive plan. *Page 130

Although these contentions of the plaintiff are not ordinary, a careful study of Hartford v. PublicUtilities Commission, supra, brings this court to the conclusion that discovery is not the proper remedy for the plaintiff to prove his allegations.

The defendant's objection to the motion for disclosure is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 A.2d 773, 31 Conn. Super. Ct. 129, 31 Conn. Supp. 129, 1974 Conn. Super. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frechette-v-branford-planning-zoning-commission-connsuperct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack