Legal Opinion
Moscowitz v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided September 20, 1988No. 6043PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpallone, J.
The defendant appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court sustaining the plaintiffs administrative appeal, claiming the trial court erred (1) by failing to find that a notation on a subdivision map restricting further subdivisions was valid, (2) by failing to find that the notation was valid where no appeal had been taken from the imposition of the notation, and (3) by failing to find that the plaintiff was estopped from challenging the notation, having taken title to the subject property with full knowledge of the restriction. We find no error.
The following facts are pertinent to…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Whittaker v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Carpenter v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- National Transportation Co., Inc. v. ToquetSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- RK Development Corp. v. City of NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Builders Service Corp. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Upjohn Co. v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Carlson v. FisherConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- La Salle National Bank, N.A. v. City of Lake ForestAppellate Court of Illinois · 1998
- Krawski v. Planning & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- Ritter & Ritter, Inc. Pension & Profit Plan v. the Churchill Condominium Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2008
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.