Legal Opinion

Santini v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 7, 1962PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, C. J.

The plaintiff, intending to apply to the liquor control commission for a package store permit for the sale of intoxicating liquors on premises leased to him, petitioned the zoning enforcement officer of Bridgeport in July, 1959, to certify that the use of the premises for a package store would not violate any Bridgeport zoning regulation. See General Statutes §30-44; Salerni v. Scheuy, 140 Conn. 566, 569, 102 A.2d 528. The officer refused certification because the plaintiff’s premises were located within 1500 feet of other premises used for the sale of intoxicating liquor. These other…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Salerni v. ScheuySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  2. Crescent Development Corporation v. Planning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
  3. Miller v. Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
  4. Dean Milk Co. v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Children's School, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of StamfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  2. Jolly Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. 94 031 10 34 (Oct. 12, 1994)Connecticut Superior Court · 1994
  3. Opinion No., Texas Attorney General Reports2002
  4. Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, Texas Attorney General Reports2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API