Zoning Inspector, Redding v. Stergue, No. 30 63 19 (Feb. 24, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Zoning Inspector, Redding v. Stergue, No. 30 63 19 (Feb. 24, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1897

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 24, 1993

DocketNo. 30 63 19

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1897 (Zoning Inspector, Redding v. Stergue, No. 30 63 19 (Feb. 24, 1993)) 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

Zoning Inspector, Redding v. Stergue, No. 30 63 19 (Feb. 24, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1897 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT CT Page 1898 The court, having read the file and the court's (Rodrigues, J.) order of July 7, 1992, has come to the conclusion that said order was beyond the necessary to preserve the status quo — and while the title of the order indicates a temporary injunction, it was actually a permanent injunction dressed to look like a temporary injunction. See Stamford v. Kovac 29 Conn. App. 105.

The plaintiff took an appeal of said order and it is presently with our Appellate Court.

This court believes that the issue of any contempt should be stayed until we have heard from the Appellate Court.

The motion for contempt is denied.

McGrath, J. CT Page 1899

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 ON MOTION FOR CONTEMPT CT Page 1898 The court, having read the file and the court's (Rodrigues, J.) order of July 7, 1992, has come to the conclusion that said order was beyond the necessary to preserve the status quo — and while the title of the order indicates a temporary injunction, it was actually a permanent injunction dressed to look like a temporary injunction. See Stamford v. Kovac 29 Conn. App. 105.

The plaintiff took an appeal of said order and it is presently with our Appellate Court.

This court believes that the issue of any contempt should be stayed until we have heard from the Appellate Court.

The motion for contempt is denied.

McGrath, J. CT Page 1899

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zoning-inspector-redding-v-stergue-no-30-63-19-feb-24-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack