Legal Opinion
Thayer v. Board of Appeals
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 8, 1931PublishedCited by 98 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
On February 9th, 1926, the city of Hartford adopted a zoning ordinance, under authority of a Special Act the general provisions of which are stated in St. Patrick’s Church Corporation v. Daniels, 113 Conn. 132, 133, 154 Atl. 343. The purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Sec. I thereof include: “promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community; securing safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; . . . preventing the overcrowding of land and avoiding undue concentration of population; . . . facilitating adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- St. Patrick's Church Corporation v. DanielsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Norcross v. Board of Appeal of Building DepartmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Chudnov v. Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Greenwich Gas Co. v. TuthillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- State v. BlakeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by98 opinions
- Strain v. MimsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- City of Los Angeles v. GageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Devaney v. Board of Zoning AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
- County of San Diego v. McClurkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Grillo v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.