Janet v. Scarpetti

Connecticut Appellate Court

Janet v. Scarpetti

552 A.2d 1225, 17 Conn. App. 825, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 32

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJanuary 18, 1989

Docket6496

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 552 A.2d 1225 (Janet v. Scarpetti) 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

Janet v. Scarpetti, 552 A.2d 1225, 17 Conn. App. 825, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 32 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action arose out of a contract by which the defendant agreed to purchase certain real estate from the plaintiff. The trial court found that the defendant had breached the contract and, by mandatory injunction, ordered him to terminate an encumbrance on the plaintiff’s title by removing the sales agreement from the Bethany land records.

We have carefully considered each of the defendant’s claims of error including a plenary review of the record, transcript and briefs of both parties. The defendant, as the appellant, has the burden of showing that there was error in the judgment from which the appeal was taken. Manzin v. United Bank & Trust Co., 6 Conn. App. 513, 517, 506 A.2d 169 (1986); B. Holden & J. Daly, Connecticut Evidence § 60i. After affording the claims of error the appropriate scope of review, we find that the defendant has not met his burden.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This action arose out of a contract by which the defendant agreed to purchase certain real estate from the plaintiff. The trial court found that the defendant had breached the contract and, by mandatory injunction, ordered him to terminate an encumbrance on the plaintiff’s title by removing the sales agreement from the Bethany land records.

We have carefully considered each of the defendant’s claims of error including a plenary review of the record, transcript and briefs of both parties. The defendant, as the appellant, has the burden of showing that there was error in the judgment from which the appeal was taken. Manzin v. United Bank & Trust Co., 6 Conn. App. 513, 517, 506 A.2d 169 (1986); B. Holden & J. Daly, Connecticut Evidence § 60i. After affording the claims of error the appropriate scope of review, we find that the defendant has not met his burden.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 A.2d 1225, 17 Conn. App. 825, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janet-v-scarpetti-connappct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack