Legal Opinion
DeSena v. City of Waterbury
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 1, 1999No. SC 15980PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KATZ, J.
At the time of the circumstances that gave rise to this appeal, General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 12-621 required, inter alia, municipal assessors to conduct *66revaluations, for taxation purposes, of all of the real property in their respective municipalities on a decennial basis. 2 Although the statutory revaluation scheme provides for only two limited circumstances under which an interim revaluation is mandated; see footnotes 14 and 15 of this opinion; the plaintiff, Allen V. DeSena, asserts that certain language in this court’s opinion in Ralston Purina Co. v. Board of Tax…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Conway v. Town of WiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- United Illuminating Co. v. GroppoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Ralston Purina Co. v. Board of Tax Review of FranklinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Newbury Commons Ltd. Partnership v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- State v. CourchesneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Hummel v. Marten Transports, Ltd.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- In re Joshua S.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Tele Tech of Connecticut Corp. v. Department of Public Utility ControlSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- Wallingford Center Associates v. Board of Tax ReviewConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.