Drake v. Planning & Zoning Com'n. Town of Stratford, s. 6277
| Decision Date | 25 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | 6278,6428 and 6716,Nos. 6277,s. 6277 |
| Citation | 541 A.2d 1251,14 Conn.App. 583 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | George DRAKE, et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF STRATFORD, et al. Anna STICK, et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF WINDSOR LOCKS. Frank R. WOOD, v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF EAST HARTFORD. DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL, INC. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF TRUMBULL. |
Before DUPONT, C.J., and BORDEN, SPALLONE, DALY, BIELUCH, EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, STOUGHTON, NORCOTT and FOTI, JJ.
The appellees in all of these cases have moved to dismiss the pending appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the principles enunciated in Simko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 205 Conn. 413, 533 A.2d 879 (1987), affirmed on rehearing. Simko v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 206 Conn. 374, 538 A.2d 202 (1988) (en banc). None of the motions was orally argued before this court.
Simko I and II relate to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. This court has jurisdiction to determine whether the Superior Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear each of these cases. Since this court does have such jurisdiction, the motions to dismiss in this court must be denied. We need not, therefore, now decide the question of whether the Superior Court did or did not have jurisdiction. That question must be decided on the record, after briefs have been filed, and oral argument, if any, has been had. Nor do we decide whether Section 3 of Public Acts 1988, No. 88-79, would provide jurisdiction in the Superior Court, assuming that Simko I and II would otherwise have required affirmance by us of the dismissal in the Superior Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orsi v. Senatore
...must be decided on the record, after briefs have been filed, and oral argument, if any, has been had." Drake v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 14 Conn.App. 583, 541 A.2d 1251 (1988). Thus, our determination that Orsi had standing to bring the appeal did not decide the question of whether she......
-
Vincenzo v. Warden
...of this appeal. This court has jurisdiction to determine whether a trial court had jurisdiction. Drake v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 14 Conn.App. 583, 541 A.2d 1251 (1988) (en banc). Because we conclude that no liberty interest was implicated by the petitioner's claim, the habeas court l......
-
Pine v. Department of Public Health
...that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' administrative appeal. See Drake v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 14 Conn.App. 583, 541 A.2d 1251 (1988). 7. The court also noted that the 1988 amendments specifically provided that a failure to make timely service......
-
Augeri v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of City of Middletown
...is fallacious. Our court has jurisdiction to determine whether a trial court had jurisdiction. See Drake v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 14 Conn.App. 583, 541 A.2d 1251 (1988) (en banc). ...