D'Alessio v. Tri-Lift, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

D'Alessio v. Tri-Lift, Inc.

520 A.2d 235, 9 Conn. App. 820, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 814

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJanuary 20, 1987

Docket4744

StatusPublished

This text of 520 A.2d 235 (D'Alessio v. Tri-Lift, Inc.) 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

D'Alessio v. Tri-Lift, Inc., 520 A.2d 235, 9 Conn. App. 820, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 814 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole question presented to us is whether the trial court erred when it refused to allow the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendants’ expert witness concerning the jury case heard and decided in a foreign jurisdiction. We see no merit to this claim. The question of the relevancy of evidence is within the broad discretion of the trial court. See Johnson v. Healy, 183 Conn. 514, 516, 440 A.2d 765 (1981); Hoadley v. University of Hartford, 176 Conn. 669, 672, 410 A.2d 472 (1979); Hayes v. Coventry, 2 Conn. App. 351, 354, 478 A.2d 620 (1984). Our review of the record in this case reveals no showing on the part of the plaintiff that the trial court has abused its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the defendants’ expert witness.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The sole question presented to us is whether the trial court erred when it refused to allow the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendants’ expert witness concerning the jury case heard and decided in a foreign jurisdiction. We see no merit to this claim. The question of the relevancy of evidence is within the broad discretion of the trial court. See Johnson v. Healy, 183 Conn. 514, 516, 440 A.2d 765 (1981); Hoadley v. University of Hartford, 176 Conn. 669, 672, 410 A.2d 472 (1979); Hayes v. Coventry, 2 Conn. App. 351, 354, 478 A.2d 620 (1984). Our review of the record in this case reveals no showing on the part of the plaintiff that the trial court has abused its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the defendants’ expert witness.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 A.2d 235, 9 Conn. App. 820, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dalessio-v-tri-lift-inc-connappct-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack