Legal Opinion
Murphy v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided November 23, 2004No. AC 24231PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FOTI, J.
The pro se plaintiffs, Karen A. Murphy and Kathleen A. Murphy, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their petition for a new trial. The court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the zoning board of appeals of the city of Stamford (board) and Stamford zoning enforcement officer, James J. Lunney III. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly rejected their claim that a new trial was warranted on the basis of (1) their procedural mistake in failing to seek certification to appeal from the underlying action, (2) the allegedly…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Fidelity Bank v. KreniskyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2002
- Wallenta v. MoscowitzConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- Mercer v. RodriquezConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
- Lauer v. Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1998
- Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. BurtonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. One or More Persons Over Whom Court's Jurisdiction Has Not Yet Been InvokedConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- Banks Building Co. v. Malanga Family Real Estate Holding, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- Parslow v. Zoning Bd. of App. of Town of MiddletownConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- State v. BennettConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- Baker v. Whitnum-BakerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.