Legal Opinion
Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc.
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided October 19, 1999No. AC 18064PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HENNESSY, J.
The plaintiffs, Timothy P. Taft, Robert G. Viens, J. Robert Viens and Marguerite G. Viens, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered on the granting of motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by the defendants, Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc. (Wheelabrator), and the zoning commission of the town of Putnam (commission). The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that Special Acts 1997, No. 97-6, § 6 (c), cured any defect in the commission’s notice of its decision…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Pamela B. v. MentSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Lawrence Brunoli, Inc. v. Town of BranfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- LaCroix v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Bridgeport Bowl-O-Rama, Inc. v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Akin v. City of NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hyllen-Davey v. Plan & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Coughlin v. City of WaterburyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Planning & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Tooley v. Metro-North Commuter RailroadConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- Connecticut Post Ltd. Partnership v. South Central Connecticut Regional Council of GovernmentsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.