Rogg v. Town of Brookfield, No. 32 19 74 (Jul. 18, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Rogg v. Town of Brookfield, No. 32 19 74 (Jul. 18, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5118-XX

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 18, 1996

DocketNo. 32 19 74

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5118-XX (Rogg v. Town of Brookfield, No. 32 19 74 (Jul. 18, 1996)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rogg v. Town of Brookfield, No. 32 19 74 (Jul. 18, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5118-XX (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This action was commenced by the plaintiffs against the Town of Brookfield and the Brookfield Zoning Commission. By stipulation, the parties agreed that the Town of Brookfield may have its motion to strike the complaint against it be granted. Effectively, this would leave the Brookfield Zoning Commission as the only defendant.

A review of the file indicates to the court that service has not been properly made pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 8-8e, in that the clerk of the municipality was served and accepted service only on behalf of the Town of Brookfield and not on behalf of the Brookfield Zoning Commission. The court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Edwin Baumerand Jean Baumer v. Borough of Newtown Zoning Commission et al., 16 Conn.L.Rptr. No. 15, 481 (June 10, 1996) Leheny, J., for an in depth analysis of Connecticut General Statutes § 8-8 et seq.

This appeal is, sua sponte, dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Mihalakos, J. CT Page 5118-YY

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This action was commenced by the plaintiffs against the Town of Brookfield and the Brookfield Zoning Commission. By stipulation, the parties agreed that the Town of Brookfield may have its motion to strike the complaint against it be granted. Effectively, this would leave the Brookfield Zoning Commission as the only defendant.

A review of the file indicates to the court that service has not been properly made pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 8-8e, in that the clerk of the municipality was served and accepted service only on behalf of the Town of Brookfield and not on behalf of the Brookfield Zoning Commission. The court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Edwin Baumerand Jean Baumer v. Borough of Newtown Zoning Commission et al., 16 Conn.L.Rptr. No. 15, 481 (June 10, 1996) Leheny, J., for an in depth analysis of Connecticut General Statutes § 8-8 et seq.

This appeal is, sua sponte, dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Mihalakos, J. CT Page 5118-YY

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5118-XX, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogg-v-town-of-brookfield-no-32-19-74-jul-18-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack