Raymond v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORWALK

Decision Date04 June 2003
CitationRaymond v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORWALK, 264 Conn. 906, 826 A.2d 177 (Conn. 2003)
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesFRANK RAYMOND ET AL. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORWALK ET AL.

Thomas M. Cassone, in support of the petition.

Robert L. Genuario and Robert A. Fuller, in opposition.

The plaintiffs' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 76 Conn. App. 222(AC 22023), is denied.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
23 cases
  • Vine v. Zon. Bd. of Appeals of N. Branford
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 3, 2006
    ...is not properly before this court. See Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn.App. 222, 247, 820 A.2d 275, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906, 826 A.2d 177 (2003). Furthermore, the defendants have not raised that issue as an alternate ground for affirming the court's decision. We, therefore, ......
  • Jersey v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Derby
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • May 22, 2007
    ...143, 146-47, 866 A.2d 645 (2005); Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn.App. 222, 228-29, 820 A.2d 275, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906, 826 A.2d 177 (2003). 6. The defendant argues that it is free to consider whether the regulations deprive a property owner of any reasonable use. We agre......
  • R v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of The Town of Ridgefield., 32105.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • June 7, 2011
    ...275 (“[b]ecause the court, in interpreting the regulations, made conclusions of law ... our review is plenary”), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906, 826 A.2d 177 (2003); we conclude that when a lower court interprets the terms of a variance or its conditions, our review likewise is plenary over th......
  • Trumbull Falls v. Planning and Zoning Com'n
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 2006
    ...Conn. 915, 888 A.2d 83 (2005); see also Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 76 Conn.App. 222, 233, 820 A.2d 275, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906, 826 A.2d 177 (2003). Finally, we note that a "court that is faced with two equally plausible interpretations of regulatory language . . . properly ma......
  • Get Started for Free