Legal Opinion
Cammarota v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided October 3, 2006No. AC 26597; AC 26837PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DiPENTIMA, J.
In this consolidated appeal, the plaintiffs in docket number AC 26597, Luigi Cammarota and Lynn Cammarota, appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their application for a writ of mandamus for automatic approval of their subdivision application. Their nine separate issues on appeal center on the single claim that the court improperly determined that the defendant, the planning and zoning commission of the town of Trumbull (commission), adequately complied with the time requirements necessary to review their application pursuant to General Statutes §§ 8-26 and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Miles v. FoleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Metropolitan Homes, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
- Jalowiec Realty Associates, L.P. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- University Realty, Inc. v. Planning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Travelers Property & Casualty Co. v. ChristieConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- Auto Glass Express, Inc. v. Hanover InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 2006
- Silverstein v. CAMPOSEOConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
- Cammarota v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TRUMBULLSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Cammarota v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.