Cybulski v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtLavery, J.
The defendant Lego Building Corporation1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court concluding that the commission’s approval of the special use permit was illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. On appeal, Lego claims that the trial court improperly (1) determined the dimensions of a public road when the plaintiff did not plead, prove or brief such claims, (2) decided the plaintiffs misrepresentation claim by conducting a de novo inquiry into the issue and placed the burden of proof on the defendants, (3) held that the commission did not have substantial evidence before it to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Burnham v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Loisel v. RoweSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- In re Romance M.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Beckish v. ManafortSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Heithaus v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Gevers v. Planning & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Raczkowski v. Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
- City of Torrington v. Zoning Commission of HarwintonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
- Boris v. Garbo Lobster Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.