Byrne v. Trice

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Byrne v. Trice

365 A.2d 1063, 170 Conn. 442, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 1037

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMarch 23, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 365 A.2d 1063 (Byrne v. Trice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Byrne v. Trice, 365 A.2d 1063, 170 Conn. 442, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 1037 (Colo. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment rendered on a jury verdict for the defendant in a negligence action arising from an intersection collision between the plaintiff’s automobile and a truck operated by the defendant. The principal issues decided by the verdict were the claims of negligence on the part of the plaintiff and the defendant’s claims of contributory negligence pleaded by way of special defense. Counsel for the named plaintiff on the appeal was not trial counsel and the appeal can best be categorized as a valiant but futile effort to retry the case in this court, pressing claims never presented to the trial court, claims of error in rulings to which no objection was raised at the trial and claims of error in the court’s charge to which no exceptions were taken and as to which no requests to charge were filed. No novel *443 principles of law or appellate procedure are involved and to discuss seriatim the plaintiff’s numerous groundless claims of error would serve no good purpose.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment rendered on a jury verdict for the defendant in a negligence action arising from an intersection collision between the plaintiff’s automobile and a truck operated by the defendant. The principal issues decided by the verdict were the claims of negligence on the part of the plaintiff and the defendant’s claims of contributory negligence pleaded by way of special defense. Counsel for the named plaintiff on the appeal was not trial counsel and the appeal can best be categorized as a valiant but futile effort to retry the case in this court, pressing claims never presented to the trial court, claims of error in rulings to which no objection was raised at the trial and claims of error in the court’s charge to which no exceptions were taken and as to which no requests to charge were filed. No novel *443 principles of law or appellate procedure are involved and to discuss seriatim the plaintiff’s numerous groundless claims of error would serve no good purpose.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 A.2d 1063, 170 Conn. 442, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 1037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrne-v-trice-conn-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack