Legal Opinion

Pierce v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided June 10, 1986No. 4204PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBorden, J.

The plaintiffs appeal and the named defendant cross appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of the defendants. In the plaintiffs’ appeal, the decisive issue is whether the trial court erred by finding that the plaintiffs failed to give proper notice of their declaratory judgment action to “all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint” pursuant to Practice Book § 390 (d). Because we find no error in the trial court’s conclusion regarding Practice Book § 390 (d), the named defendant’s cross appeal, which pertains to additional findings of the trial court, is…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mystic Marinelife Aquarium, Inc. v. GillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
  2. Tazza v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  3. Walls v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
  4. State Ex Rel. Kelman v. SchafferSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
  5. Benz v. WalkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Fusco v. ConnecticutCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
  2. Zoning Board of Appeals v. Planning & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
  3. Fusco v. The State Of ConnecticutCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
  4. Young v. ChaseConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
  5. Buchholz's Appeal from ProbateConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987

17 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