Legal Opinion
Feigenbaum v. City of Waterbury
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided October 24, 1989No. 7085PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.
Pursuant to General Statutes § 8-129, on October 24, 1986, the defendant Waterbury Renewal and Economic Development Agency (hereinafter the defendant), agent of the city of Waterbury, took certain property of the plaintiff by eminent domain and filed a statement of compensation fixing damages at $10,500. The plaintiff, pursuant to General Statutes § 8-132, appealed this award to the Superior Court. The court referred the case to the Hon. James P. Doherty, state trial referee, who exercised the powers of the Superior Court. See General Statutes §§ 52-434 and 52-434a (a). A hearing was held and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Birnbaum v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Budney v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Minicucci v. Commissioner of TransportationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Bennett v. New Haven Redevelopment AgencySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- DiBonaventura v. Zoning Board of AppealsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
- Commissioner of Transportation v. LarobinaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Bristol v. MilanoConnecticut Superior Court · 1998
- Danbury Savings & Loan Ass'n v. HoviConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- City of New London v. PicinichConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.