Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission

696 A.2d 1265, 241 Conn. 925, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 257

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJune 25, 1997

DocketSC 15714

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 A.2d 1265 (Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission) 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

Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 696 A.2d 1265, 241 Conn. 925, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 257 (Colo. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

The petition of the defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of Litchfield and intervening defendant Karen A. Grimes for certification for appeal [926]*926from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 89 (AC 15831), is granted, limited to the following issue:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15714. Gail E. McTaggart and Robert L. Fisher, Jr., in support of the petition. Kenneth R. Slater, Jr., in opposition. Decided June 25, 1997

“Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Courtproperly (1) reverse the trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiffs zoning appeal, and (2) remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs application for subdivision approval and for a special exception?”

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

The petition of the defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of Litchfield and intervening defendant Karen A. Grimes for certification for appeal [926]*926from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 89 (AC 15831), is granted, limited to the following issue:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15714. Gail E. McTaggart and Robert L. Fisher, Jr., in support of the petition. Kenneth R. Slater, Jr., in opposition. Decided June 25, 1997

“Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Courtproperly (1) reverse the trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiffs zoning appeal, and (2) remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs application for subdivision approval and for a special exception?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 A.2d 1265, 241 Conn. 925, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irwin-v-planning-zoning-commission-conn-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack