Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 CONNAPP 595 - Edelson v. Zoning Commission

Edelson v. Zoning Commission’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
June 1999
most recently cited

32 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Onofrio · Hurlbut v. Lemelin · Muha v. United Oil Co. · Houston v. Warden · Dolan v. Zoning Board of Appeals

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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When the zoning commission of any municipality proposes to establish or change a zone or any regulation affecting CT Page 346 the use of a zone any portion of which is within five hundred feet of the boundary of another municipality located within the area of operation of a regional planning agency, the zoning commission shall give written notice of its proposal to the regional planning agency or agencies of the region in which it and the other municipality are located not later than thirty-five days before the public hearing to be held in relation thereto. . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is a cardinal rule of construction that the statutes are to be construed so that they can carry out the intent of the legislature. This intent is to be ascertained from the language of the statute itself where the language is plain and unambiguous. Grievance Committee v. Trantolo, 192 Conn. 15 , 22 , 470 A.2d 228 (1984); Hurlbut v. Lemelin, 155 Conn. 67 , 73 , 230 A.2d 36 (1967).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In cases involving the sale of alcoholic beverages, the Supreme Court has held that the status of the appellants as taxpayers in the community entitled them to prosecute the appeal. When traffic in liquor is involved, a resident taxpayer is, a priori, an aggrieved person with standing to prosecute an appeal; he need not show that he has an interest peculiar to himself.”
    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.