Sobol v. Planning & Zoning Commission
262 A.2d 185, 158 Conn. 623
Opinion
The trial court substituted its judgment for that of the defendant commission. It had no authority to do so. Belknap v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 380, 384, 232 A.2d 922, and cases cited; see Hawkes v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 207, 240 A.2d 914.
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to dismiss the appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sobol v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 262 A.2d 185, 158 Conn. 623 (Colo. 1969).
262 A.2d 185 (Sobol v. Planning & Zoning Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Housatonic Terminal Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Board
362 A.2d 1375 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1975)
Horvath v. Zoning Board of Appeals
316 A.2d 418 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1972)
Clapp v. South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission
290 A.2d 326 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1971)
Kish v. Planning & Zoning Board
267 A.2d 442 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1970)