Upjohn Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
616 A.2d 798, 224 Conn. 106, 1992 Conn. LEXIS 354 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appeal from a judgment is rendered moot when the trial court subsequently opens and replaces that judgment with a new one. An appellate court cannot provide any practical relief regarding an original judgment that is no longer in effect.
Facts:
- The Upjohn Company (Upjohn) operated a chemical manufacturing business in North Haven, which produced solid hazardous waste that accumulated on its property as a large sludge pile.
- In 1982, Upjohn applied to the town's planning and zoning commission for permission to make improvements related to two lagoons on its property.
- In 1983, the commission granted the applications subject to 23 conditions, including 'Condition Seven,' which required Upjohn to submit a plan and timetable for the elimination of future sludge production and removal of all existing sludge.
- Upjohn did not appeal or contest the imposition of Condition Seven at the time it was issued.
- In May 1986, the North Haven zoning enforcement officer issued a cease and desist order to Upjohn, demanding it stop storing the sludge and remove the existing pile for failure to comply with Condition Seven.
Procedural Posture:
- The North Haven zoning enforcement officer issued a cease and desist order to The Upjohn Company (Upjohn).
- Upjohn appealed the order to the defendant, the zoning board of appeals of the town of North Haven (board), which denied the appeal.
- Upjohn then appealed the board's denial to the trial court.
- On February 21, 1991, the trial court rendered a judgment dismissing Upjohn's appeal.
- The Appellate Court granted Upjohn's petition for certification to appeal the trial court's dismissal.
- Subsequently, on May 24, 1991, the trial court, on its own motion, opened its judgment of dismissal and rendered a new judgment sustaining Upjohn's appeal (ruling in Upjohn's favor).
- Despite the new favorable judgment, the appeal of the original, now-opened judgment was transferred from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court of Connecticut for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an appeal from a trial court's judgment of dismissal moot when the trial court subsequently opens that judgment on its own motion and renders a new, superseding judgment that is favorable to the appellant?
Opinions:
Majority - Borden, J.
Yes, the appeal is moot. An appeal cannot be maintained from a judgment that is no longer in effect. In this case, the trial court's first judgment dismissing Upjohn's appeal was completely displaced when the court, on its own motion, opened that judgment and substituted a new one sustaining Upjohn's appeal. Because the original judgment under appeal ceased to exist, there is no action the appellate court can take that would have any practical effect on it. Therefore, the controversy is no longer live, and the appeal must be dismissed as moot.
Analysis:
This case provides a straightforward application of the mootness doctrine, emphasizing that appellate courts only decide live controversies where a ruling can grant practical relief. It illustrates that a trial court can, under certain circumstances, render a pending appeal moot by vacating its own judgment and issuing a new one. This decision reinforces the principle that courts will not issue advisory opinions on legal questions stemming from judgments that have been superseded and no longer have any legal force.
