Clark v. Clark

Connecticut Appellate Court

Clark v. Clark

665 A.2d 179, 39 Conn. App. 901, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 440

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

Docket14388

StatusPublished

This text of 665 A.2d 179 (Clark v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Clark, 665 A.2d 179, 39 Conn. App. 901, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 440 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the trial court rendered pursuant to a pendente lite order.

The plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the pendente lite order in the absence of notice, but the record lacks any facts or findings to support this contention. The plaintiff has failed to present a written memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the court explaining the factual basis for its decision. We have consistently stated that it is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review. Practice Book § 4061; Gelormino v. Blaustein, 31 Conn. App. 750, 751, 626 A.2d 1325 (1993); State v. Rios, 30 Conn. App. 712, 715, 622 A.2d 618 (1993). We see no reason to depart from this rule.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the trial court rendered pursuant to a pendente lite order.

The plaintiff claims that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the pendente lite order in the absence of notice, but the record lacks any facts or findings to support this contention. The plaintiff has failed to present a written memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the court explaining the factual basis for its decision. We have consistently stated that it is the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate record for review. Practice Book § 4061; Gelormino v. Blaustein, 31 Conn. App. 750, 751, 626 A.2d 1325 (1993); State v. Rios, 30 Conn. App. 712, 715, 622 A.2d 618 (1993). We see no reason to depart from this rule.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 A.2d 179, 39 Conn. App. 901, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-clark-connappct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack