Murphy v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CITY OF STAMFORD
870 A.2d 1080, 273 Conn. 910
Opinion
Karen A. MURPHY et al.
v.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the CITY OF STAMFORD et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Karen A. Murphy, pro se, and Kathleen A. Murphy, pro se, in support of the petition.
John W. Mullin, assistant corporation counsel, in opposition.
The plaintiffs' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn.App. 147, 860 A.2d 764 (2004), is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Murphy v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CITY OF STAMFORD, 870 A.2d 1080, 273 Conn. 910 (Colo. 2005).
870 A.2d 1080 (Murphy v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CITY OF STAMFORD) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Murphy v. Zoning Board of Appeals
860 A.2d 764 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2004)