Legal Opinion
Planning & Zoning Commission of Lisbon v. Desrosier
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 16, 1988No. 5447PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStoughton, J.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants on the second count of the plaintiffs’ complaint.1 We find error in part.
The defendants2 are the owners of premises at 16 Oak Drive and at 26 Oak Drive, both in the town of Lisbon. *552The plaintiffs, the town of Lisbon planning and zoning commission and Chris A. Hempstead, the town zoning enforcement officer, claim that the court erred (1) in concluding that 26 Oak Drive was in an R-40 zone when the evidence at trial clearly indicated that it was in an R-60 zone, (2) in its computation of the lot…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Gonier v. Chase Companies, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Zoning Commission v. LescynskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Town of West Hartford v. RechelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Johnson v. MurzynConnecticut Appellate Court · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Town of Sherburne v. CarpenterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1990
- Fisette v. DiPietroConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
- Town of Monroe v. RenzConnecticut Appellate Court · 1997
- City of Stamford v. StephensonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.