Legal Opinion

Gil v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided September 25, 1990No. 8418PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLavery, J.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s finding that the denial by the defendant inland wetlands and watercourses agency of Greenwich1 of the plain*381tiff’s application for a permit to construct a residence with a driveway and septic system in a wetlands constituted a taking of the plaintiff’s property. The defendant claims that the trial court (1) should have given preclusive effect to earlier court rulings regarding the taking issue, (2) should not have relieved the plaintiff of the burden of showing the unavailability of alternate uses of the property, (3) in applying the balancing test in…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Goldblatt v. Town of HempsteadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
  3. Just v. Marinette CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Cioffoletti v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  5. Dooley v. Town Plan & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Gil v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses AgencySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  2. D'Addario v. Planning & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
  3. O'Connor v. Corps of Engineers, United States ArmyDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1992
  4. Gil v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  5. Herman v. Redding Conservation Commission, No. 31 43 27 (Aug. 18, 1995)Connecticut Superior Court · 1995

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API