Elliott v. Estate of Galaske

Connecticut Appellate Court

Elliott v. Estate of Galaske

552 A.2d 1225, 17 Conn. App. 823, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 30

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJanuary 11, 1989

Docket6577

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 552 A.2d 1225 (Elliott v. Estate of Galaske) 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

Elliott v. Estate of Galaske, 552 A.2d 1225, 17 Conn. App. 823, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 30 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action seeking an injunction and specific performance on a lease agreement, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs’ claims of error involve the trial court’s interpretation of the lease agreement which implicate the factfinding function of the trial court. We will not retry [824]*824the case. It is well established that the intention of the parties as to their contractual obligations is a question of fact and as such, we will not reverse the findings of the trial court unless we find they are clearly erroneous. Gallicchio Bros., Inc. v.C & S Oil Co., 191 Conn. 104, 107, 463 A.2d 600 (1983). In an exhaustive and well reasoned memorandum of decision by the state trial referee, the court’s findings are clearly set forth. Our review of the entire record fails to disclose that the factual findings of the referee were clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings, or that the decision was otherwise unsupported by the evidence. Practice Book § 4061; Branigan v. Cohen, 3 Conn. App. 580, 581, 490 A.2d 1019 (1985).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

In this action seeking an injunction and specific performance on a lease agreement, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs’ claims of error involve the trial court’s interpretation of the lease agreement which implicate the factfinding function of the trial court. We will not retry [824]*824the case. It is well established that the intention of the parties as to their contractual obligations is a question of fact and as such, we will not reverse the findings of the trial court unless we find they are clearly erroneous. Gallicchio Bros., Inc. v.C & S Oil Co., 191 Conn. 104, 107, 463 A.2d 600 (1983). In an exhaustive and well reasoned memorandum of decision by the state trial referee, the court’s findings are clearly set forth. Our review of the entire record fails to disclose that the factual findings of the referee were clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings, or that the decision was otherwise unsupported by the evidence. Practice Book § 4061; Branigan v. Cohen, 3 Conn. App. 580, 581, 490 A.2d 1019 (1985).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 A.2d 1225, 17 Conn. App. 823, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-estate-of-galaske-connappct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack