Court Opinion

ID: 9715830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:15:34.606932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:38.405623
License: Public Domain

Shea, J.
(dissenting in part). I agree fully with Part I and Part II of this opinion.
I disagree with Part III which affirms the injunction against the defendant "William P. Longo despite recognition of the absence of any factual basis in the memorandum of decision to support its issuance. The deficiency, however, is not one which could be cured by a further articulation of the decision, because the only evidence claimed by the plaintiffs to support the injunction against the defendant Longo is set forth in the memorandum. This evidence indicates that his role was limited to writing a letter stating that the application of the plaintiffs should first be submitted to the defendant Pomperaug Valley water authority for approval, a position taken also by counsel for the town and the defendant commission.
An injunction to prohibit unlawful interference with another may be regarded as placing no greater burden upon the person enjoined than the law already imposes. It has never been suggested heretofore, nevertheless, that such an injunction may be issued without first proving that illegal acts have been performed or threatened by the party to be enjoined. Without a finding that the defendant *487Longo did or was likely to interfere unlawfully with the plaintiffs, he was entitled to prevail.
I would remand the case to the trial court with direction to modify the judgment to eliminate the injunction against the defendant Longo.