From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ventures v. Norwal

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 4, 2004
271 Conn. 943 (Conn. 2004)

Opinion

Michael S. Taylor, Wesley W. Horton and Kimberly A. Knox, in support of the petition.

Barbara M. Schellenberg filed an opposition that was adopted by Stephen J. Conover and Louis S. Ciccarello, corporation counsel.

Decided November 4, 2004.


The petition by the plaintiffs, Maritime Ventures, LLC, and Maritime Motors, Inc., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 85 Conn. App. 38 (AC 24638), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's decision permitting the taking of nonsubstandard property within a development area by a redevelopment agency because the use of the property failed to conform to uses permitted under the plan?

"2. Under the facts of this case, did the Appellate Court properly determine that a new finding of blight was unnecessary in adopting the 1998 revised Reed Putnam urban renewal plan?"

SULLIVAN, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17302.


Summaries of

Ventures v. Norwal

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Nov 4, 2004
271 Conn. 943 (Conn. 2004)
Case details for

Ventures v. Norwal

Case Details

Full title:MARITIME VENTURES, LLC, ET AL. v. CITY OF NORWALK ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Nov 4, 2004

Citations

271 Conn. 943 (Conn. 2004)

Citing Cases

Maritime Ventures v. Norwalk

"(2) Under the facts of this case, did the Appellate Court properly determine that a new finding of blight…