HEINONEN v. Mandracchia
This text of 993 A.2d 981 (HEINONEN v. Mandracchia) 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.
Opinion
Mark HEINONEN
v.
James M. MANDRACCHIA et al.
Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Mark Heinonen, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
J. Kevin Golger, for the appellees (defendants).
FLYNN, C.J., and GRUENDEL and WEST, Js.[*]
PER CURIAM.
In this negligence action, the plaintiff, Mark Heinonen, appeals from the judgment, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the defendants, James M. Mandracchia and Cheryl Mandracchia. After a thorough review of the record, transcripts, briefs and oral argument, and affording those claims that properly are before this court careful consideration, we conclude *982 that the plaintiff's claims are without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOTES
[*] The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
993 A.2d 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heinonen-v-mandracchia-connappct-2010.