Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals

347 A.2d 58, 166 Conn. 112, 1974 Conn. LEXIS 873

DecidedMarch 5, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 347 A.2d 58 (Johnson v. 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

Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 347 A.2d 58, 166 Conn. 112, 1974 Conn. LEXIS 873 (Colo. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal involves the same parties as Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, also decided this date, 166 Conn. 102, 347 A.2d 53, but relates to a second citation, summons and complaint dated January 18, 1969, and characterized by the plaintiff, Carol C. Johnson, as an “amended writ, summons and complaint duly and timely served on or before January 22, 1969.” Both defendants filed pleas in abatement alleging that the purported amendment constituted an appeal taken later than fifteen days after the action of the zoning board of appeals in violation of § 8-8 of the General Statutes. Prom a judgment sustaining the pleas in abatement [113]*113of both defendants, the plaintiff has appealed to this eonrt. He assigns error to the determination of the court (DeVita, J.) that the papers actually served on January 20, 1969, constituted an appeal taken after the fifteen-day appeal period, and not an amendment. In view of the disposition of Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, we find it unnecessary to discuss the issues raised by this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

This appeal involves the same parties as Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, also decided this date, 166 Conn. 102, 347 A.2d 53, but relates to a second citation, summons and complaint dated January 18, 1969, and characterized by the plaintiff, Carol C. Johnson, as an “amended writ, summons and complaint duly and timely served on or before January 22, 1969.” Both defendants filed pleas in abatement alleging that the purported amendment constituted an appeal taken later than fifteen days after the action of the zoning board of appeals in violation of § 8-8 of the General Statutes. Prom a judgment sustaining the pleas in abatement [113]*113of both defendants, the plaintiff has appealed to this eonrt. He assigns error to the determination of the court (DeVita, J.) that the papers actually served on January 20, 1969, constituted an appeal taken after the fifteen-day appeal period, and not an amendment. In view of the disposition of Johnson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, we find it unnecessary to discuss the issues raised by this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 A.2d 58, 166 Conn. 112, 1974 Conn. LEXIS 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-zoning-board-of-appeals-conn-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack