Legal Opinion

Bombero v. Planning & Zoning Commission

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 21, 1991No. 14180PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBorden, J.

The defendant, the planning and zoning commission of the town of Trumbull (commission), appeals from the judgment of the trial court that an amendment to the subdivision regulations of the town *738is (1) unconstitutionally vague, and (2) arbitrary. The plaintiffs1 had appealed to the trial court from the action of the commission in enacting the amendment. On appeal to this court, the commission claims that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) the plaintiffs were aggrieved by the enactment of the amendment; and (2) the amendment is unconstitutionally vague and is arbitrary. We conclude…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Primerica v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  2. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co. v. CarothersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  3. Gohld Realty Co. v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  4. Cioffoletti v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  5. State v. FloydSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  2. Serrani v. Board of EthicsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  3. Barberino Realty & Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  4. Stafford Higgins Industries, Inc. v. City of NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
  5. Felsman v. Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993

14 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