General
ZONING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWN OF REDDING ET AL. v. RAYMOND PLUNSKE
48 Conn. App. 422·Connecticut Appellate Court·1998·CT
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
ZONING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWN OF REDDING ET AL. v. RAYMOND PLUNSKE
(AC 15312)
O’Connell, C. J., and Landau and Hennessy, Js.
Argued March 2
officially released April 14, 1998
Nancy Burton, for the appellant (defendant).
James T. Shearin, with whom, on the brief, was Christian LeBrun, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This is the defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s judgment issuing an injunction that ordered the defendant to maintain his property in compliance with the zoning laws of the town of Redding. The trial court also imposed a monetary penalty on the defendant and awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.
We have fully reviewed the record and briefs and considered the oral arguments of the parties. The trial court’s findings are supported by the evidence and the inferences that reasonably may be drawn therefrom. Having applied the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision conformed to the applicable law. No novel principles of law or appellate procedure are involved in this case, and to discuss the defendant’s claims at length would serve no useful purpose. See Byrne v. Trice, 170 Conn. 442, 442-43, 365 A.2d 1063 (1976); Benlock v. New Haven Terminal/Cilco Terminal, 48 Conn. App. 250, 706 A.2d 1390 (1998).
The judgment is affirmed.