Legal Opinion
Burton v. Planning Commission
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided February 9, 1988No. 5625PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBorden, J.
The dispositive issue of this appeal is whether the timely filing of a memorandum of law in opposition to a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Practice Book § 143,1 is mandatory or directory. We conclude that this issue is controlled by the reasoning of *402our Supreme Court in Hughes v. Bemer, 200 Conn. 400, 510 A.2d 992 (1986), and we hold that the timely filing of such a memorandum of law is mandatory.
Certain facts are undisputed. The plaintiff2 appealed to the Superior Court from a decision of the named defendant, the planning commission of the town of Red-ding, approving the application of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. ThurmanConnecticut Appellate Court · 1987
- Pepe v. City of New BritainSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- Lublin v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Fishman v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1985
- Hughes v. BemerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- City of Bridgeport v. Barbour-Daniel Electronics, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- Burton v. Planning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- State v. ZoravaliConnecticut Appellate Court · 1994
- Brunswick v. Inland Wetlands CommissionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
- Carothers v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1989
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.