Legal Opinion
Brunswick v. Inland Wetlands Commission
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 20, 1991No. 8983PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, J.
The plaintiffs, after a full hearing on the merits, challenge the trial court’s dismissal of their *544appeal from the Bethany inland wetlands commission’s approval of a wetlands permit and subdivision proposal.1 We do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims because the dispositive issue, raised sua sponte by the court, is the validity of a writ signed by an attorney who was one of the named plaintiffs. We conclude that an attorney cannot sign the writ in a case in which he is a party and, therefore, the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
The following facts are…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- In Re GriffithsSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- State v. NardiniSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Heslin v. Connecticut Law Clinic of Trantolo & TrantoloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Brunswick v. Inland Wetlands CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- State v. MillerConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. DunicanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Williams v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.