Gates v. Gates

Connecticut Appellate Court

Gates v. Gates

971 A.2d 852, 115 Conn. App. 293, 2009 Conn. App. LEXIS 294

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 23, 2009

DocketAC 30249

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 971 A.2d 852 (Gates v. Gates) 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

Gates v. Gates, 971 A.2d 852, 115 Conn. App. 293, 2009 Conn. App. LEXIS 294 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Richard Gates, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the judgment of the Probate Court. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it was without subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal due to the plaintiffs failure to file his complaint with the Superior Court within thirty days of the mailing of the Probate Court’s memorandum of decision, as required by General Statutes § 45a-186 (a).

After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the court’s memorandum of decision resolves properly the issue raised in this appeal, we adopt the court’s concise and well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Gates v. Gates, 51 Conn. Sup. 148, 975 A.2d 147 (2008). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Socha v. Bordeau, 289 Conn. 358, 362, 956 A.2d 1174 (2008).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Richard Gates, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the judgment of the Probate Court. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it was without subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal due to the plaintiffs failure to file his complaint with the Superior Court within thirty days of the mailing of the Probate Court’s memorandum of decision, as required by General Statutes § 45a-186 (a).

After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the court’s memorandum of decision resolves properly the issue raised in this appeal, we adopt the court’s concise and well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Gates v. Gates, 51 Conn. Sup. 148, 975 A.2d 147 (2008). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Socha v. Bordeau, 289 Conn. 358, 362, 956 A.2d 1174 (2008).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

971 A.2d 852, 115 Conn. App. 293, 2009 Conn. App. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gates-v-gates-connappct-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack