Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtNorcott, J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether we should continue to adhere to our longstanding interpretation of “aggrieved person” in Gen*186eral Statutes § 8-8.1 In accordance with existing precedent, any taxpayer in a municipality has automatic standing to appeal from a zoning decision involving the *187sale of liquor in that community. The plaintiffs, Jolly, Inc., Richard Tuliano and Carman Tuliano,2 appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing, for lack of aggrievement, their administrative appeal from the decision of the named defendant, the zoning board of *188appeals of the city of…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Castro v. VieraSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- White v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
- Winchester Woods Associates v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- O'Connor v. O'ConnorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Simko v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by124 opinions
- State v. DeJesusSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Conway v. Town of WiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Craig v. DriscollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
- State v. FergusonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Stuart v. StuartSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
119 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.