Jellison v. O'Connell

Connecticut Appellate Court

Jellison v. O'Connell

808 A.2d 752, 73 Conn. App. 564, 2002 Conn. App. LEXIS 552

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedNovember 12, 2002

DocketAC 22715

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 808 A.2d 752 (Jellison v. O'Connell) 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

Jellison v. O'Connell, 808 A.2d 752, 73 Conn. App. 564, 2002 Conn. App. LEXIS 552 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The pro se plaintiff, Charles E. Jellison, appeals from the trial court’s judgment of nonsuit rendered against him. On appeal, the plaintiff apparently claims that the court improperly rendered the judgment of nonsuit.

We decline to review the plaintiffs claim because he has failed to provide any legal authority for or analysis of his claim. “[W]e are not required to review claims that are inadequately briefed. . . . We consistently have held that [ajnalysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wren v. MacPherson Interiors, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 349, 359, 794 A.2d 1043 (2002).

“[F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal . . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs. We do not reverse the judgment of a trial court on the basis of challenges to its rulings that have not been adequately briefed. . . . The parties may not merely cite a legal principle without analyzing the relationship between the facts of the case and the law cited. . . . [Assignments of error which are merely mentioned but not briefed beyond a statement of the claim will be deemed abandoned and will not be [566]*566reviewed by this court. . . . Where the parties cite no law and provide no analysis of their claims, we do not review such claims.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Baris v. Southbend, Inc., 68 Conn. App. 546, 550-51, 791 A.2d 713 (2002). We therefore decline to review the plaintiffs claim and deem it abandoned.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The pro se plaintiff, Charles E. Jellison, appeals from the trial court’s judgment of nonsuit rendered against him. On appeal, the plaintiff apparently claims that the court improperly rendered the judgment of nonsuit.

We decline to review the plaintiffs claim because he has failed to provide any legal authority for or analysis of his claim. “[W]e are not required to review claims that are inadequately briefed. . . . We consistently have held that [ajnalysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wren v. MacPherson Interiors, Inc., 69 Conn. App. 349, 359, 794 A.2d 1043 (2002).

“[F]or this court judiciously and efficiently to consider claims of error raised on appeal . . . the parties must clearly and fully set forth their arguments in their briefs. We do not reverse the judgment of a trial court on the basis of challenges to its rulings that have not been adequately briefed. . . . The parties may not merely cite a legal principle without analyzing the relationship between the facts of the case and the law cited. . . . [Assignments of error which are merely mentioned but not briefed beyond a statement of the claim will be deemed abandoned and will not be [566]*566reviewed by this court. . . . Where the parties cite no law and provide no analysis of their claims, we do not review such claims.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Baris v. Southbend, Inc., 68 Conn. App. 546, 550-51, 791 A.2d 713 (2002). We therefore decline to review the plaintiffs claim and deem it abandoned.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 A.2d 752, 73 Conn. App. 564, 2002 Conn. App. LEXIS 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jellison-v-oconnell-connappct-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack