Legal Opinion

Griffin v. Planning & Zoning Commission

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided March 23, 1993No. 10674; 10987PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDupont, C. J.

This mandamus action concerns a dispute over the meaning to be accorded a judgment rendered in accordance with a stipulation executed in settlement of a zoning dispute. The principal issue is whether the stipulated judgment allows the use of the ground floor of the plaintiffs building for a new car dealership sales office. The case was tried to an attorney trial referee who determined that the stipulated judgment allowed the first floor of the building to be so used. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and granted the plaintiff’s request for a writ of mandamus, directing the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gurliacci v. MayerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  2. Nor'easter Group, Inc. v. Colossale Concrete, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  3. Builders Service Corp. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  4. Bryan v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
  5. Hennessey v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Housing Authority v. LamotheSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  2. Bunche v. BuncheConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
  3. Zadravecz v. ZadraveczConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
  4. Crepeau v. GronagerConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  5. Par Developers, Ltd. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995

9 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