Legal Opinion
Ammirata v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 22, 2003No. SC 16614PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PALMER, J.
The sole issue presented in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the record was inadequate to review the claims of the plaintiffs, Michael Ammirata and Margaret Ammirata, that principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded the named defendant,1 the zoning board of appeals of the town of Redding (board), from litigating claims or issues regarding the plaintiffs’ alleged violation of zoning regulations that previously were litigated or could have been litigated in a prior action brought against the plaintiffs by the town of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Willow Springs Condominium Ass'n v. Seventh BRT Development Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Rivera v. Double A Transportation, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Community Action for Greater Middlesex County, Inc. v. American Alliance InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Town of GrotonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Francini v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Bender v. BenderSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- Hudson United Bank v. Cinnamon Ridge Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- Miller's Pond Co., LLC v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Brunswick v. Statewide Grievance CommitteeConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- Wiltzius v. Zoning Board of AppealsConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.