41 Conn. Super. Ct. 196 - Massimo v. Planning Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Vartuli v. Sotire · Goldberg v. Zoning Commission · Manor Development Corp. v. Conservation Commission · Petruzzi v. Zoning Board of Appeals · Dooley v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In essence the plaintiffs [have] to establish that the public hearing was a sham.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hen the legislature used the phrase `appear for or represent,' its purpose was to prevent the member from acting for or on behalf of others, and not from speaking for himself on an application affecting his own property. If it intended to prevent any zoning board member individually from either making an application or speaking against an application the legislature could have accomplished that end without using the phrase `appear for or represent any person.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[s]ection 8-11 aims its prohibition at zoning members or alternates who act on behalf of, or, as a spokesperson for, third parties . . . [i]t is that advocacy for others that the statute prohibits. It does not prohibit a member or alternate of a zoning commission from speaking individually before a planning commission about the effect of an CT Page 5852 application on his own property.”
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.