Bendell v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 13 July 1965 |
| Citation | 212 A.2d 199,153 Conn. 48 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Harry BENDELL et al. v. Wilfred X. JOHNSON et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Harvey A. Katz, Glastonbury, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Edward J. Daly, Jr., Hartford, for appellee (named defendant).
Louis Weinstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Harold M. Mulvey, Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant liquor control commission).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and HOUSE, JJ.
The plaintiffs appeal from the denial of their prayer for an injunction against the defendant Wilfred X. Johnson restraining him from accepting or utilizing a package store permit if it is issued by the defendant liquor control commission.
The court found that a package store permit was issued to Johnson by the commission on February 4, 1963, conditioned on the building which he was erecting being ready for occupancy. This finding, however, is incorrect. After a public hearing on January 7, 1963, and after viewing the premises the commission found that the issuance of a permit in this neighborhood would not be detrimental to the public interest, when and if the premises were found to be ready for occupancy. The commission requested Johnson by letter, dated February 5, 1963, to submit an affidavit as to when the premises would be constructed and ready for occupancy for the type of permit sought. There is no evidence in the record of compliance with this request.
A sign noting that a liquor permit was being sought had been erected by Johnson on the proposed site on October 31, 1962, and on November 2, 1962. Johnson had also had similar notices published in a local newspaper. Both the newspaper notices and the sign at the site of the proposed location failed to specify the type of liquor permit being sought, namely a package store permit. On the advice of the liquor control commission, after the hearing but before the commission's final action, Johnson had 'corrected notices' published in the newspaper and erected a sign with a corrected notice on the premises.
The plaintiffs claim that the notices initially published and erected by Johnson were defective in that they did not specify the type of permit being applied for, as required by § 30-39 of the General Statutes. This violation of the statute along with other claims relating to the location of the proposed package store was the basis upon which the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against Johnson.
There is no direct appeal allowed from the action by the commission in granting, suspending or revoking permits except by applicants and permittees. General Statutes §§ 30-39, 30-60. Where the commission, however, grants a permit in violation of an express provision of law, its action may be attacked by a proper legal procedure. In some cases the attack is by way of an injunctive proceeding where the commission would be a proper but not a necessary party. Town of Newington v. Mazzoccoli, 133 Conn. 146, 156, 157, 48 A.2d 729. Most controversies, like that in the Newington case, involve the granting of a permit in violation of a local zoning ordinance. General Statutes § 30-44; cf. Kallay's Inc. v. Katona, 152 Conn. 546, 548, 209 A.2d 185. But one seeking injunctive relief in a matter involving the regulation of the sale of liquor by the state is not thereby exempted from the rules and procedures governing the issuance of injunctions. In the Newington case, we held that only those 'whose justiciable interests were injured * * * would, in a proper case, be entitled to seek redress in an action for injunctive relief.' Town of Newington v. Mazzoccoli, supra, 133 Conn. 156, 48 A.2d 734. In addition to other factors, a 'justiciable interest' is at least one founded on the imminence of substantial and irreparable injury. Crouchley v. Pambianchi, 152 Conn. 224, 227, 205...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jezouit v. Malloy, AC 40839
...of precedent with respect to the requirements for seeking injunctive relief on the basis of wrongful conduct. See Bendell v. Johnson , 153 Conn. 48, 51, 212 A.2d 199 (1965) ("[O]nly those whose justiciable interests were injured ... would, in a proper case, be entitled to seek redress in an......
-
Hopkins v. Hamden Bd. of Ed.
...a matter of right but rather rests in the sound discretion of the court when adequate relief at law is not available. Bendell v. Johnson, 153 Conn. 48, 51, 212 A.2d 199. The rights of the plaintiffs have not been made so clear that the court can at this time find without doubt that any cons......
-
Reynolds v. Soffer
...could not support an "award of injunctive relief and permit a bypass of the administrative procedure." See Bendell v. Johnson, 153 Conn. 48, 51-52, 212 A.2d 199 (1965). Although it does not appear in the record, the defendants state in their brief that the zoning enforcement officer refused......
-
Everett v. Pabilonia
...v. Olson, 183 Conn. 337, 340, 439 A.2d 357 (1981); Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222 (1971); Bendell v. Johnson, 153 Conn. 48, 51, 212 A.2d 199 (1965). The granting of an injunction is not mandatory but is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Berin v. Olson, su......