Esposito v. Planning Commission
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtHull, J.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering automatic approval of their subdivision application under the sixty-five day rule set forth in General Statutes § 8-26d1 since the defendant planning commission failed to take any action on that application after it had been remanded by the Superior Court to the planning commission for reconsideration. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiffs appeal. In the light of Gervasi v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 184 Conn. 450, 440 A.2d 163 (1981), we…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Steve Viglione Sheet Metal Co. v. SakonchickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Rybinski v. State Employees' Retirement CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
- Berin v. OlsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Viking Construction Co. v. Town Planning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Pointina Beach Assoc., Inc. v. StellaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Levine v. Plan & Zoning CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
- Esposito v. Planning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Esposito v. Planning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Sea Assoc. v. Planning Zoning Comm., No. Cv-89-0363109-S (Aug. 6, 1990)Connecticut Superior Court · 1990