Johnson v. Sewer Authority

Connecticut Appellate Court

Johnson v. Sewer Authority

573 A.2d 322, 21 Conn. App. 814, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 120

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedApril 11, 1990

Docket8214

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 573 A.2d 322 (Johnson v. Sewer Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Sewer Authority, 573 A.2d 322, 21 Conn. App. 814, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 120 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from the state trial referee’s dismissal of his appeal of a special benefit sewer assessment levied by the defendant against his property.

A special benefit assessment established by an appropriate town body is presumed to be valid and correct. Katz v. West Hartford, 191 Conn. 594, 602, 469 A.2d [815]*815410 (1983); Anderson v. Litchfield, 4 Conn. App. 24, 28, 492 A.2d 210 (1985). In order to rebut that presumption, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the assessment is invalid because it exceeds the dollar benefit accruing to his property. Anderson v. Litchfield, supra. Benefit to the plaintiffs property is measured by the difference between the market value of the property before and after the improvement. Id., 29.

Our review of the record in the present case discloses that the plaintiff produced no evidence to rebut the presumption of the assessment’s validity. The trial referee properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from the state trial referee’s dismissal of his appeal of a special benefit sewer assessment levied by the defendant against his property.

A special benefit assessment established by an appropriate town body is presumed to be valid and correct. Katz v. West Hartford, 191 Conn. 594, 602, 469 A.2d [815]*815410 (1983); Anderson v. Litchfield, 4 Conn. App. 24, 28, 492 A.2d 210 (1985). In order to rebut that presumption, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the assessment is invalid because it exceeds the dollar benefit accruing to his property. Anderson v. Litchfield, supra. Benefit to the plaintiffs property is measured by the difference between the market value of the property before and after the improvement. Id., 29.

Our review of the record in the present case discloses that the plaintiff produced no evidence to rebut the presumption of the assessment’s validity. The trial referee properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 A.2d 322, 21 Conn. App. 814, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-sewer-authority-connappct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack