From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...
Bartram v. Zoning Commission of City of Bridgeport
Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors
68 A.2d 308 (1949)
Facts
A new residential neighborhood grew in the outskirts of the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut. The area had originally been farmland with land along the main street zoned for business, but in 1936 the area was rezoned for residential use. A property owner, Rome, approached the Zoning Commission of the City of Bridgeport (zoning commission) (defendant) to request that his lot in the neighborhood be rezoned so that he could construct a building that would house a drugstore, a grocery store, a hardware store, a bakery, and a beauty parlor. Some, but not all, of the residents in the neighborhood registered their opposition to the proposal. The zoning commission granted Rome’s request, and the property was rezoned from a residential lot to a business lot. Bartram (plaintiff), a resident of the city, sued the zoning commission for this decision, alleging that it was an abuse of the zoning commission’s authority and amounted to spot zoning. The zoning commission claimed that the rezoning had been made in accordance with a comprehensive zoning plan that sought to decentralize shopping areas in the city. The trial court held that the zoning commission’s decision was improper. The zoning commission appealed, and the appeal court upheld the trial court’s ruling. The zoning commission again appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Matlbie, C.J.)
Dissent (Dickenson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
