Legal Opinion
Norooz v. Inland Wetlands Agency
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided February 4, 1992No. 10148PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDupont, C. J.
The named defendant1 Woodburyinland wetlands agency appeals from the decision of the trial court sustaining the plaintiffs’2 appeal from the denial of their permit application by the inland wetlands agency. The trial court concluded that the agency decision must be set aside because it was based on extrarecord information, that is, material not presented to the agency at a public hearing. The material involved the reports of an engineering consultant retained by the agency to provide it with technical assistance by reviewing and commenting on the plaintiffs’ application. We conclude that it…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Spero v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Pizzola v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- Parsons v. Board of Zoning AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Levinson v. Connecticut Board of Chiropractic ExaminersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Grimes v. Conservation CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Megin v. ZONING BD. OF APP. OF NEW MILFORDConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Palmisano v. Conservation CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Blakeman v. Planning & Zoning Commission of SheltonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- Daniel v. Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.