Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** ALFRED S. DIETZEL ET AL. v. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF REDDING (AC 19063)
Foti, Pellegrino and Peters, Js. Argued April 25--officially released October 3, 2000 Counsel

Candace D. Paige, for the appellants (William A. Oppenheimer et al.). Neil R. Marcus, with whom, on the brief, was Patricia Curtin Sullivan, for the appellees (plaintiffs). Linda L. Morkan, with whom, on the brief, was Michael N. LaVelle, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

FOTI, J. In this land use appeal, the intervenors, Kathleen Oppenheimer and William Oppenheimer (Oppenheimers), appeal from the denial by the trial court of their motion to open the judgment approving a settlement agreement entered into between the plaintiffs, Alfred S. Dietzel and Sharon L. Dietzel (Dietzels), and the defendant, the planning commission of the town of

Redding (commission). On appeal, the Oppenheimers claim that the court improperly (1) concluded that they lacked standing to participate in the settlement agreement between the Dietzels and the commission under General Statutes

Download Dietzel v. Planning Commission.pdf

Connecticut Law