Kobryn v. Kobryn

244 A.2d 411, 156 Conn. 638
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 25, 1968·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The finding is not subject to correction in any respect which will assist the plaintiff. Any correction to which the plaintiff is entitled would not change the result in any way. Taylor v. Taylor, 154 Conn. 340, 341, 225 A.2d 196; Sipp v. Sipp, 151 Conn. 705, 197 A.2d 73. The assignment of error on the evidential ruling was not briefed [639]*639and must therefore be considered abandoned. Bartlett v. Flaherty, 155 Conn. 203, 204, 230 A.2d 436; Shelton Yacht & Cabana Club, Inc. v. Suto, 150 Conn. 251, 254, 188 A.2d 493; Hannifan v. Sachs, 150 Conn. 162, 165, 187 A.2d 253.

The conclusions which the court reached find ample support in the subordinate facts.

There is no error.

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

Kobryn v. Kobryn, 244 A.2d 411, 156 Conn. 638 (Colo. 1968).

244 A.2d 411 (Kobryn v. Kobryn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ghiloni
398 A.2d 1204 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1978)
Rex Marine Center, Inc. v. Newton
338 A.2d 507 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1975)
Barrett-Nonpareil, Inc. v. Stoll
357 A.2d 481 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1975)
Maskel Construction Co. v. American Masons' Supply Co.
262 A.2d 274 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1969)
Time Finance Corp. v. Clark
269 A.2d 88 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1969)
Adams v. Rubinow
251 A.2d 49 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1968)