Legal Opinion

Camm v. Hart

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided February 25, 1986No. 4174PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBorden, J.

In this mandamus action, the defendants, the members of the planning and zoning commission of the town of New Canaan, appeal from a supplemental judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, owners of a two lot subdivision. The plaintiffs had obtained an original judgment of mandamus compelling the approval of their subdivision because the defendants had failed to act on their application for subdivision approval within the statutorily required period.

The issue in this appeal involves the propriety of the supplemental judgment, which declared that the requirements of the zoning regulations…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Vartuli v. SotireSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
  2. State Ex Rel. Lavoie v. Building CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
  3. Kiska v. SkrenskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1958
  4. Merlo v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  5. Viking Construction Co. v. Town Planning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Krawski v. Planning & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
  2. Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
  3. Beninato v. Zoning Board of AppealsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API