Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Citation
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-12-17
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7911954/blitz-v-subklew/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (20)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
- Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
Full Text
628 charsThe court found that the evidence presented at trial indicated that the defendant believed that the property was already zoned for automotive sales because a prior business on the property involved both tractor sales and repair. The defendant and a witness testified that the plaintiff stated that only the town zoning officer’s signature was required for the zoning application and it was only a formality.1 It later was determined that the zoning officer would not sign the application and that approval from the board was required for the defendant’s proposed business. The defendant then filed an application with the board.