Zoning Inspector v. Plunske

Connecticut Appellate Court

Zoning Inspector v. Plunske

706 A.2d 1391, 48 Conn. App. 422, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 167

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedApril 14, 1998

DocketAC 15312

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 706 A.2d 1391 (Zoning Inspector v. Plunske) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zoning Inspector v. Plunske, 706 A.2d 1391, 48 Conn. App. 422, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 167 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s judgment issuing an injunction that [423]*423ordered the defendant to maintain his property in compliance with the zoning laws of the town of Redding. The trial court also imposed a monetary penalty on the defendant and awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.

We have fully reviewed the record and briefs and considered the oral arguments of the parties. The trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence and the inferences that reasonably may be drawn therefrom. Having applied the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision conformed to the applicable law. No novel principles of law or appellate procedure are involved in this case, and to discuss the defendant’s claims at length would serve no useful purpose. See Byrne v. Trice, 170 Conn. 442, 442-43, 365 A.2d 1063 (1976); Benlock v. New Haven Terminal/Cilco Terminal, 48 Conn. App. 250, 706 A.2d 1390 (1998).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s judgment issuing an injunction that [423]*423ordered the defendant to maintain his property in compliance with the zoning laws of the town of Redding. The trial court also imposed a monetary penalty on the defendant and awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.

We have fully reviewed the record and briefs and considered the oral arguments of the parties. The trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence and the inferences that reasonably may be drawn therefrom. Having applied the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision conformed to the applicable law. No novel principles of law or appellate procedure are involved in this case, and to discuss the defendant’s claims at length would serve no useful purpose. See Byrne v. Trice, 170 Conn. 442, 442-43, 365 A.2d 1063 (1976); Benlock v. New Haven Terminal/Cilco Terminal, 48 Conn. App. 250, 706 A.2d 1390 (1998).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 A.2d 1391, 48 Conn. App. 422, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zoning-inspector-v-plunske-connappct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack