Matthews v. Nolan

Connecticut Appellate Court

Matthews v. Nolan

599 A.2d 747, 26 Conn. App. 920, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 415

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedDecember 3, 1991

Docket9933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 599 A.2d 747 (Matthews v. Nolan) 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

Matthews v. Nolan, 599 A.2d 747, 26 Conn. App. 920, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 415 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant, L. Douglas Nolan, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in a quiet title action in which the trial court granted the plaintiff title in a strip of land serving as a common boundary between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s properties. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court improperly interpreted the evidence at trial. Accordingly, he asks us to interpret the evidence presented at trial independently and to reverse the decision of the trial court. We decline to undertake such a review.

Although much of the trial testimony was disputed, the credibility of witnesses, the findings of facts and the drawing of inferences are all within the province of the trier of fact. Grayson v. Grayson, 4 Conn. App. 275, 293, 494 A.2d 576 (1985), appeal dismissed, 202 Conn. 211, 520 A.2d 225 (1987). “It is futile to assign error involving the weight of testimony or the credibility of witnesses.” Slattery v. Maykut, 176 Conn. 147, 149, 405 A.2d 76 (1978). This court can neither retry the facts in order to make our own findings nor pass [921]*921on the credibility of witnesses; Lupien v. Lupien, 192 Conn. 443, 445, 472 A.2d 18 (1984); Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 263, 413 A.2d 854 (1979); “but can only review such findings to determine whether they could legally, logically and reasonably be found thereby establishing that the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did.” Zolan, Bernstein, Dworken & Klein v. Milone, 1 Conn. App. 43, 47, 467 A.2d 938 (1983).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant, L. Douglas Nolan, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in a quiet title action in which the trial court granted the plaintiff title in a strip of land serving as a common boundary between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s properties. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court improperly interpreted the evidence at trial. Accordingly, he asks us to interpret the evidence presented at trial independently and to reverse the decision of the trial court. We decline to undertake such a review.

Although much of the trial testimony was disputed, the credibility of witnesses, the findings of facts and the drawing of inferences are all within the province of the trier of fact. Grayson v. Grayson, 4 Conn. App. 275, 293, 494 A.2d 576 (1985), appeal dismissed, 202 Conn. 211, 520 A.2d 225 (1987). “It is futile to assign error involving the weight of testimony or the credibility of witnesses.” Slattery v. Maykut, 176 Conn. 147, 149, 405 A.2d 76 (1978). This court can neither retry the facts in order to make our own findings nor pass [921]*921on the credibility of witnesses; Lupien v. Lupien, 192 Conn. 443, 445, 472 A.2d 18 (1984); Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 263, 413 A.2d 854 (1979); “but can only review such findings to determine whether they could legally, logically and reasonably be found thereby establishing that the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did.” Zolan, Bernstein, Dworken & Klein v. Milone, 1 Conn. App. 43, 47, 467 A.2d 938 (1983).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 A.2d 747, 26 Conn. App. 920, 1991 Conn. App. LEXIS 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-nolan-connappct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack