Legal Opinion
Stroiney v. Crescent Lake Tax District
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided November 17, 1987No. 13141PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHull, J.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ action on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs lacked standing. We agree with the trial court that the defendant Crescent Lake Tax District (district) is a de facto quasi-municipal corporation whose validity may only be challenged by the state in a quo warranto proceeding, and find no error.
On April 15, 1982, a petition was submitted to the town of Enfield requesting that a meeting be held for the purpose of voting on a proposal to form a special tax district…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Tulare Irrigation District v. ShepardSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Barnes v. BarnesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Steve Viglione Sheet Metal Co. v. SakonchickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- STRORINEY v. Crescent Lake Tax DistrictSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Jordan v. Knox CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 2007
- Sadloski v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
- McLaughlin v. BronsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- Third Taxing District v. LyonsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Goodson v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.