Section 21-79

Citation: Section 21-79
Parent Document: Eamiello v. Liberty Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 208 Conn. 620 (1988)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1988-08-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7893279/eamiello-v-liberty-mobile-home-... ↗

Full Text

1,177 chars

We note initially that Hall is not binding precedent on this court, in contrast to a decision by the United States Supreme Court. In view of the procedural posture of the case, the Hall court did not reach the merits of whether the Santa Barbara ordinance violated the takings clause and that case at most provides dicta favorable to the defendant’s position. Three judges on the Ninth Circuit dissented from the denial of an en banc rehearing of the case and strongly criticized the Hall court’s reasoning in regard to whether the ordinance violated the takings clause. Id., 1282-84. We decline to apply the rationale of Hall to this case for two reasons. First, unlike the Hall court, we conclude that the modification of the common law right of the lessor to absolute control over the term of the lease and the identity of his lessee effectuated by § 21-79 in respect to mobile home parks is not sufficiently analogous to a physical occupation of property to violate the takings clause as interpreted by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Second, there are significant differences between our mobile home statutes in this case and the Santa Barbara ordinance.

Other Sections in This Document (80)

Full Text