Lathrop v. Town of Norwich
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The original reasons of appeal to the Superior Court may be resolved into two general propo sitions. The first is that strict application of the ordinances and regulations will cause such difficulty and unreasonable hardship to the appellant in relation to his premises that the board of appeals erred in not granting such a modification in the application thereof as to permit the erection of the pumps, filling station and oil pit as shown by the plans and specifications. In the examination of this contention, the general purposes and objects of zoning ordinances and the special functions of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- City of Aurora v. BurnsIllinois Supreme Court · 1925
- State v. HillmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Town of Windsor v. WhitneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Rindge v. HolbrookSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. WalshCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Adolphson v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Thayer v. Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Devaney v. Board of Zoning AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
- Florentine v. Town of DarienSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.