Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Dinan v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Connecticut Supreme Court
595 A.2d 864 (1991)


Facts

The Dinans (plaintiffs) own a two-family house in a single-family residence zone. However, the house satisfies the requirements for a legal nonconforming use, which means it can still legally be used as a residence for two families. But the Dinans did not live on the property, and they were not renting it to two families. Rather, each of the house’s two floors is occupied by five unrelated persons, each occupant The tenants each have a separate bedroom, but share common cooking and bathroom facilities. There are 11 striped parking spaces on the property. In 1989, a zoning-enforcement officer decided the Dinans were using the property as a rooming house rather than as a residence for two families, and the officer ordered the Dinans to stop their current use. The municipality’s zoning regulations defined “family” as persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The Dinans appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board) (defendant), claiming that the zoning regulation’s definition of “family” was: (1) ultra vires because it was unauthorized by the zoning act and (2) unconstitutional. A law is ultra vires if the enacting body did not have the legal power or authority to pass that law. The Board upheld the zoning officer’s determination. The Dinans appealed to the trial court. The trial court found for the Dinans and declared the zoning regulation’s definition of “family” invalid. The trial court held the definition was beyond the statutory zoning authority given to municipalities and violated the state constitution. The Board appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Shea, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.