Bartram v. Zoning Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Sheridan v. Planning Board (1969), Couch v. Zoning Commission (1954)
82 state decisions
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 Strain v. Mims · Town of Windsor v. Whitney · Piccolo v. Town of West Haven · Mrowka v. Board of Zoning Appeals · Bishop v. Board of Zoning Appeals of New Haven
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The property of no one was taken by the commission's decision; nor is there any finding or, indeed, evidence that property values would be affected. * * * Property owners in the neighborhood had no right to a continuation of the existing situation which could be effective against a decision by the commission reached legally and properly. The state, through the authority it vests in zoning authorities, `may regulate any business or the use of any property in the interest of the public health, safety, or welfare, provided this be done reasonably. To that extent the public interest is supreme and the private interest must yield.' Town of Windsor v. Whitney, 95 Conn. 357, 366 , 111 A. 354, 356 , 12 A.L.R. 669 * * *. "How best the purposes of zoning can be accomplished in any municipality is primarily in the discretion of its zoning authority; that discretion is a broad one; and unless it transcends the limitations set by law its decisions are subject to review in the courts only to the extent of determining whether or not it has acted in abuse of that discretion. First National Bank & Trust Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 126 Conn. 228, 237 , 10 A.2d 691 . A court is without authority to substitute its own judgment for that vested by the statutes in a zoning authority. Piccolo v. Town of West Haven, 120 Conn. 449, 455 , 181 A. 615 ; Mrowka v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 134 Conn. 149, 155 , 55 A.2d 909 . In view of the facts present in this case, the trial court could not properly ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The vice of spot zoning lies in the fact that it singles out for special treatment a lot or a small area in a way that does not further [the best interests of the community as a whole].”
1 later decision 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.