Legal Opinion

Red Maple Properties v. Zoning Commission

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 18, 1992No. 14341PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBerdon, J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether a real estate developer, who sought a permit from a local zoning commission, had a property interest protected by the substantive component of the due process clause of the federal constitution. The plaintiff, Red Maple Properties, brought suit against the defendants, the zoning commission of the town of Brookfield (commission) and its members,1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19832 claiming that its civil rights had been violated by the actions of the defendants in preventing the use of its property as a multi-unit condominium project after the plaintiff…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Scott v. Greenville CountyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
  4. Bello v. WalkerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
  5. Yale Auto Parts, Inc. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Kelley Property Development, Inc. v. Town of LebanonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  2. Thomas v. City of West HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  3. Schnabel v. TylerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  4. Discover Leasing, Inc. v. MurphyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
  5. Hall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

29 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