Legal Opinion
Grimes v. Conservation Commission
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided November 25, 1997No. SC 15573; SC 15574PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KATZ, J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether a municipal conservation commission, acting pursuant to the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, General *268Statutes § 22a-36 et seq. (act), must give an abutter actual notice of site inspections attended by a quorum of commissioners and by an agent of the property owner. This case arises out of an appeal by the plaintiff, Karen A. Grimes, from the granting by the defendant, the conservation commission of the town of Litchfield (commission),1 of five applications to conduct activities regulated by the act. The plaintiff appealed from…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Withrow v. LarkinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Feinson v. Conservation CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Packer v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Department of Social ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- R & R Pool & Patio, Inc. v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- Megin v. ZONING BD. OF APP. OF NEW MILFORDConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- D'Amico v. JohnsonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.