Fong v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtShea, J.
This appeal involves the issue of whether a successful applicant to a planning and zoning board of appeals (board) is an indispensable party to an appeal of the board’s decision in his favor and, if so, whether failure to name and serve the applicant deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the Appellate Court insofar as it concluded that a successful applicant to a zoning board is an indispensable party to such an appeal, but reverse its decision that the failure to name and serve a successful applicant in an appeal from a zoning board decision deprives the court of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Shields v. BarrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Sturman v. SochaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Connecticut, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Crosby v. Spokane CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public HealthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Double I Ltd. Partnership v. Plan & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Stafford Higgins Industries, Inc. v. City of NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.