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. ******************************************************

JAMES LUCAS ET AL. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF HARWINTON ET AL. (AC 32110)
DiPentima, C. J., and Lavine and Bear, Js. Argued June 1--officially released August 9, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Hon. Charles D. Gill, judge trial referee.) R. Bartley Halloran, with whom, on the brief, was Kaitlin A. Halloran, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Steven E. Byrne, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion

BEAR, J. The plaintiffs, James Lucas and Leslie B. Lucas, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their appeal from the decision of the defendant zoning commission of the town of Harwinton on the ground that they failed to plead facts sufficient to allege aggrievement.1 On appeal to this court, the plaintiffs claim that they pleaded facts sufficient to allege both statutory and classical aggrievement, and, therefore, that the court improperly dismissed their appeal. We agree that the plaintiffs' complaint contained facts sufficient to allege statutory aggrievement pursuant to General Statutes

Download Lucas v. Zoning Commission.pdf

Connecticut Law