Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 Conn. App. 176 - Johnson v. Murzyn

1 Conn. App. 176 - Johnson v. Murzyn’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
2
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

2 district · 88 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Conservation Commission v. Price (1984), Gelinas v. Town of West Hartford (1993)

2 district · 88 state decisions

5101983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc. · Berin v. Olson · 94 Wis. 2d 153 - County of Columbia v. Bylewski · Town of Lebanon v. Woods · Lynch v. Davis

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"A municipality, in seeking to enjoin a threatened or existing violation of its zoning regulations, need not show damage accruing to it by reason of the violation. In acting to enforce the regulation it acts on behalf of the interest of all property owners within the municipality to enforce their right to require conformity with the regulation as the quid pro quo for their own submission to the restrictions imposed upon their property. . . . [T]he municipality is not required to show irreparable harm or the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law before obtaining an injunction; rather, all that must be shown is a violation of the ordinance."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[e]ven in an action brought by a zoning enforcement officer to require conformity with the zoning regulations, the granting of injunctive relief, which must be compatible with the equities of the case, rests within the trial court's sound discretion. Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc. , [ 170 Conn. 344 , 356 , 365 A.2d 1093 (1976)]. Those equities should take into account the gravity CT Page 8392 and wilfulness of the violation, as well as the potential harm to the defendants. Berin v. Olson , 183 Conn. 337 , 343 , 439 A.2d 357 (1981).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “irreparable harm or the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law before obtaining an injunction; rather, all that must be shown is a violation of the ordinance.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.