Scoville v. Ronalter

67 Citing cases

  1. Loulis v. Parrott

    241 Conn. 180 (Conn. 1997)   Cited 39 times
    In Loulis, owners of a package store in the town of Monroe sought an order to enjoin use of a nearby property as another package store.

    The plaintiffs also contend that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply in this case because "[u]nder a long line of cases, neighbors and opponents do not have to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing zoning permits and certificates of compliance issued to the property owner, and can bring directly an injunction action for private zoning enforcement to eliminate a zoning violation." See, e.g., Cummings v. Tripp, 204 Conn. 67, 75, 527 A.2d 230 (1987); Reynolds v. Soffer, 183 Conn. 67, 69-72, 438 A.2d 1163 (1981); Blum v. Lisbon Leasing Corp., Inc., 173 Conn. 175, 179-80, 377 A.2d 280 (1977); Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222 (1971). The defendants contend, to the contrary, that the line of cases on which the plaintiffs rely has a narrower scope than the plaintiffs' formulation, and that the "cases relied upon by [the] plaintiffs for this proposition are, in fact, cases of nuisance, or claims that the plaintiffs suffered special and peculiar injuries."

  2. Silitschanu v. Groesbeck

    208 Conn. 312 (Conn. 1988)   Cited 34 times

    " Karls v. Alexandra Realty Corporation, 179 Conn. 390, 401, 426 A.2d 784 (1980). There was no demonstration of irreparable harm flowing from the construction of a commercial building larger than authorized, in contrast to a smaller one. "`The issuance of an injunction is the exercise of an extraordinary power which rests within the sound discretion of the court. . . .' Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222." Id. "In the absence of such a showing [of irreparable injury], an injunction cannot be issued.

  3. Griswold v. Union Labor Life Ins. Co.

    186 Conn. 507 (Conn. 1982)   Cited 134 times
    Finding ambiguity where `we cannot say with any degree of certainty [what the clause] was intended to exclude'

    " Connecticut Mobile Home Assn., Inc. v. Jensen's, Inc., 178 Conn. 586, 588, 424 A.2d 285 (1979). Courts will not, however, require exhaustion of an administrative remedy when that remedy is either inadequate or futile. See Conto v. Zoning Commission, 186 Conn. 106, 115, 439 A.2d 441 (1982); Connecticut Mobile Home Assn., Inc. v. Jensen's, Inc., supra; Kosinski v. Lawlor, 177 Conn. 420, 425, 418 A.2d 66 (1979); State ex rel. Golembeske v. White, 168 Conn. 278, 282, 362 A.2d 1354 (1975); Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222 (1971); Bianco v. Darien, 157 Conn. 548, 554, 254 A.2d 898 (1969). "We must examine the complaint to determine whether the plaintiffs were required to exhaust an administrative remedy before the Superior Court could entertain his action.

  4. Kloter v. Carabetta Enterprises, Inc.

    186 Conn. 460 (Conn. 1982)   Cited 46 times

    It is well settled in Connecticut that in assessing damages for permanent injury to real estate, the proper measure is the diminution in value. Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 76, 291 A.2d 222 (1971); Taylor v. Conti, 149 Conn. 174, 180, 177 A.2d 670 (1962); Stratford Theater, Inc. v. Stratford, 140 Conn. 422, 424, 101 A.2d 279 (1953). Such a measure of damages necessarily involves a consideration of the former value of the property.

  5. Mackin v. Mackin

    186 Conn. 185 (Conn. 1982)   Cited 42 times
    Upholding the trial court's grant of a partial view

    Minimal inconvenience is an insufficient springboard for an award of substantial damages. Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 76, 291 A.2d 222 (1971). For a violation of their legal rights the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment vindicating those rights.

  6. Reynolds v. Soffer

    183 Conn. 67 (Conn. 1981)   Cited 79 times
    Finding that allegations of specific and material damage must be present for there to be an exception to the exhaustion doctrine

    Blum v. Lisbon Leasing Corporation, supra; see Cawley v. Housing Authority, 146 Conn. 543, 547, 152 A.2d 923 (1959). In Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 70, 74, 291 A.2d 222 (1973), we held that owners of premises abutting property on which apartments were under construction might bring an action claiming irreparable damage and nuisance, although, when the building inspector invalidly issued building permits under a mistake of fact, they did not pursue a statutory right of appeal to the zoning board. That action sought to enjoin the building inspector and zoning enforcement officer from issuing renewal permits for apartment construction and to restrain the builders from continuing construction.

  7. Karls v. Alexandra

    179 Conn. 390 (Conn. 1980)   Cited 129 times
    Explaining that, "to be irrevocably committed to a particular use, there must have been a significant amount of preliminary or preparatory work done on the property prior to the enactment of the zoning regulations which unequivocally indicates that the property was going to be used for that particular purpose"

    Blum v. Lisbon Leasing Corporation, 173 Conn. 175, 180, 377 A.2d 280; Fitzgerald v. Merard Holding Co., 106 Conn. 475, 482, 138 A.2d 483; see also, 3 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning (4th Ed.) c. 66. "The issuance of an injunction is the exercise of an extraordinary power which rests within the sound discretion of the court, and the justiciable interest which entitles one to seek redress in an action for injunctive relief is at least one founded on the imminence of substantial and irreparable injury. Bendell v. Johnson, 153 Conn. 48, 51, 212 A.2d 199; 42 Am.Jur.2d, Injunctions, 48, 49; see Herbert v. Smyth, 155 Conn. 78, 85, 230 A.2d 235; Brainard v. West Hartford, 140 Conn. 631, 634, 103 A.2d 135." Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222. It is not enough to show that the defendant has violated the zoning regulations. The plaintiff seeking injunctive relief bears the burden of proving facts which will establish irreparable harm as a result of that violation.

  8. Potter v. Board of Selectmen

    174 Conn. 195 (Conn. 1978)   Cited 40 times
    In Potter, this court had held in a prior proceeding that the plaintiff was improperly denied a permit to operate a mobile home park.

    The plaintiff also requested an injunction in his prayer for relief. He must allege and assume the burden of proving facts which will establish substantial and irreparable injury as well as the absence of an adequate remedy at law to prevail on this issue. Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222. The record fails to reveal that the plaintiff has pursued any administrative appeals from the denial of his requests for the building and health permits in question as provided for by 19-402 and 19-103 of the General Statutes.

  9. Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc.

    170 Conn. 344 (Conn. 1976)   Cited 116 times
    In Dupuis, the court considered the claim of the Groton building inspector and zoning officer that the defendant had not obtained the proper permits to construct an office building costing $500,000.

    The granting of an injunction rests within the sound discretion of the court. Jones v. Foote, 165 Conn. 516, 521, 338 A.2d 467; Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222. The relief granted must be compatible with the equities of the case.

  10. Simmons v. Budds

    165 Conn. 507 (Conn. 1973)   Cited 19 times
    In Simmons, the plaintiffs had claimed that the defendants, various University of Connecticut officials, had violated the constitutional mandate of article eighth, ยง 2, of the Connecticut constitution that the University of Connecticut "`shall be dedicated to excellence in higher education.'"

    Relief by way of mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedy granted in the sound discretion of the court and only under compelling circumstances. Morrison v. Work, 266 U.S. 481, 490, 45 S.Ct. 149, 69 L.Ed. 394; Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222; Herbert v. Smith, 155 Conn. 78, 85, 230 A.2d 235. "There must not only be a violation of the plaintiff's rights, but such a violation as is, or will be, attended with actual or serious damage."