Home/Connecticut Appellate Court/LaFlamme v. Cooke

LaFlamme v. Cooke

610 A.2d 200, 28 Conn. App. 910, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 290
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJuly 28, 1992
Docket10349
StatusPublished

This text of 610 A.2d 200 (LaFlamme v. Cooke) 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
LaFlamme v. Cooke, 610 A.2d 200, 28 Conn. App. 910, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 290 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After a careful review of the record and briefs in this matter, we find no plain error. In this matter, counsel agreed that our review is limited to the plain error standard. “When our review is limited to the plain error standard, the appellant does not have access to plenary review. Review for plain error is reserved for truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings. . . . We consider the . . . claims of error in the light of this rarefied standard of review.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Small v. South Norwalk Savings Bank, 205 Conn. 751, 759, 535 A.2d 1292 (1988).

We find that no extraordinary situation exists.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Small v. South Norwalk Savings Bank
535 A.2d 1292 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
610 A.2d 200, 28 Conn. App. 910, 1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laflamme-v-cooke-connappct-1992.