(DOWNLOAD) "Little v. Ives" by Supreme Court of Connecticut " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Little v. Ives
- Author : Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Release Date : January 06, 1969
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 51 KB
Description
The sole issue raised by the plaintiff's
appeal relates to the construction by the court of
No. 597 of the Public Acts of 1967, now 13a-76a of
the General Statutes. On March 7, 1961, the defendant
highway commissioner, acting in accordance with the
provisions of 13-112 of the General Statutes
[158 Conn. 454]
(Rev. of 1958) (now 13a-57), filed in the office of
the Bridgeport town clerk, a map showing the portions
of the layout of the relocation of the state highway
known as routes 25 and 8 in the city of Bridgeport.
The plaintiff's property, which was zoned for
industry and comprised a number of separate factory
buildings, was within the limits of the proposed
highway. Commencing in 1961, the plaintiff lost
rental income from her properties each year because
of vacancies. Income from the property decreased
each year until the filing of the certificate of taking
by the defendant pursuant to 13a-73 (b) of the
General Statutes on November 17, 1967. From the
defendant's assessment of damages the plaintiff
appealed to the Superior Court, claiming that the
damages assessed for the taking of the plaintiff's
premises by the defendant were inadequate; that
there was an unreasonable delay between the filing
of the map on March 7, 1961, and the filing of the
certificate of taking on November 17, 1967; and that
in consequence of this delay the plaintiff sustained
substantial losses in revenue from rentals of the
premises during that period of time. The court
increased the assessment of damages for the taking
predicated upon the value of the real estate. It
concluded in substance (1) that 13a-76a, which
became effective on passage June 21, 1967, was not
retrospective in its application; (2) that the period
of delay between the filing of the map and the
effective date of the statute could not be considered
in determining whether there had been unreasonable
delay; (3) that the period of less than five months
between the effective date of the act and the filing of
the certificate of taking did not amount to an
unreasonable delay; and (4) that the plaintiff was not
entitled to any additional damages predicated on
[158 Conn. 455]