Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Nizzardo v. State Traffic Commission
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 29, 2002No. SC 16239Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
BORDEN, J., with whom NORCOTT and PALMER, Js.,
join, concurring and dissenting. I agree with and join part I of the majority opinion, in which the court concludes that a denial of a request for intervention pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-19 (a)1 was not a “final decision” within the meaning of General Statutes § 4-183. I disagree with the reasoning of part II of the *169majority opinion, in which the court reaffirms the holdings of Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. Stamford, 192 Conn. 247, 470 A.2d 1214 (1984), and Middletown v. Hartford Electric Light Co., 192 Conn. 591, 473 A.2d…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. GillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
- Concerned Citizens of Sterling v. Town of SterlingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Red Hill Coalition, Inc. v. Conservation CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- Manchester Environmental Coalition v. StocktonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Inc. v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.