Home/Supreme Court of Connecticut/Bitonti v. Tucker

Bitonti v. Tucker

295 A.2d 545, 162 Conn. 626
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided March 10, 1972·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant in an action resulting from a stairway fall on the defendant’s premises. After the trial court filed its memorandum of decision finding the issues for the plaintiff, counsel who had represented the defendant on the trial of the case was permitted to withdraw his appearance and the defendant, acting pro se, appealed to this court from the judgment rendered. As is not unusual in such circumstances, where an appeal is attempted by a layman who is without legal training and unskilled in legal practice and procedure, the appeal claims innumerable errors on the part of the trial court, including assigned error in seventy-seven paragraphs relating to the draft finding and finding of the court.

[627]*627In accordance with our established policy to allow great latitude to a litigant who, either by choice or necessity, represents himself in legal proceedings, so far as such latitude is consistent with the just rights of any adverse party, we have carefully examined and considered each of the claims of the defendant so far as it is possible to understand them. See Higgins v. Hartford County Bar Assn., 109 Conn. 690, 692, 145 A. 20. If there is merit to any of them, we have been unable to discover it and it would serve no useful purpose to discuss them seriatim.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bitonti v. Tucker, 295 A.2d 545, 162 Conn. 626 (Colo. 1972).

295 A.2d 545 (Bitonti v. Tucker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hudson v. Administrator, No. Cv 00-0598587s (Dec. 15, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 16175 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Pollansky v. Coventry Pl. Zoning Comm., No. Cv 98 0066583s (Aug. 2, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 10587 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Ford v. Store Twenty Four, Inc., No. Cv 99 042 45 50 (Apr. 23, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5359 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
State v. Kung
726 A.2d 130 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)
Mozzochi v. Freedom of Information Commission
688 A.2d 363 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1997)
Gould v. United Illuminating Co., No. Cv 93 351501 (Jan. 17, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 498 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Werner v. Town of Easton, No. 295156 (Feb. 16, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1484 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
O'Neill v. Novak, No. Fa89 0103133 S (Sep. 7, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8114 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)
Mantell v. Greene
542 A.2d 1169 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
LaBow v. LaBow
537 A.2d 157 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
Conservation Commission v. Price
479 A.2d 187 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1984)
Cersosimo v. Cersosimo
449 A.2d 1026 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1982)
Rodriguez v. Mallory Battery Co.
448 A.2d 829 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1982)
Mechanics Savings Bank v. Tucker
425 A.2d 124 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1979)
Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Tucker
423 A.2d 141 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1979)
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Kluczinsky
370 A.2d 1306 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1976)
Continental National American Group v. Majeske
305 A.2d 291 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1973)
Continental National American Group v. Majeske
30 Conn. Supp. 566 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1973)
State v. Thibodeau
30 Conn. Supp. 524 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1972)
State v. Thibodeau
298 A.2d 48 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1972)