Koepke v. Zoning Board of Appeals

628 A.2d 985, 226 Conn. 913, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 235
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 21, 1993·No. SC 14795·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The defendant Susan Oygard’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 395 (AC 8672), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that an appellant’s failure to file a zoning appeal within the thirty day time limit provided in General Statutes § 8-7 deprives a zoning board of appeals of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal?

“2. If the answer to question (1) is yes, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, Oygard’s appeal was untimely?”

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

Koepke v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 628 A.2d 985, 226 Conn. 913, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 235 (Colo. 1993).

628 A.2d 985 (Koepke v. Zoning Board of Appeals) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Koepke v. Zoning Board of Appeals
645 A.2d 983 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1994)
Miniter v. Zoning Board of Appeals
642 A.2d 67 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1994)
Bloom v. Zon. Bd. of Appeals, Norwalk, No. Cv 93-0303192 (Feb. 25, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 1892 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)