Legal Opinion
Miskimen v. Biber
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided October 19, 2004No. AC 22879PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SCHALLER, J.
The defendants 1 appeal and the plaintiffs 2 cross appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in part in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had commenced a three count action against the defendants seeking private enforcement of the zoning regulations of the town of Preston and other relief. 3 With respect to count one, the court concluded that the use of eighty acres (excess land) in Preston, directly across Pierce Road in Preston from Strawberry Park, was a valid accessory use to a recreational park, except that the use of such land in connection with the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Karls v. Alexandra Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Reynolds v. SofferSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Schomer v. ShilepskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Doyen v. Zoning Board of Appeals of EssexConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- D & J Quarry Products, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- Reichenbach v. Kraska Enterprises, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Benson v. ZONING BD. OF APPEALS OF WESTPORTConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Wucik v. PLANNING AND ZONING COM'N OF TOWN OF PRESTONConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- Kosinski v. CarrConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.