Messenger v. Messenger

559 A.2d 1193, 18 Conn. App. 825, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 200
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided June 1, 1989·No. 7204·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have carefully considered each of the defendant’s claims of error including a plenary review of the record, transcript and briefs of the parties. As the appellant, the defendant has the burden of showing that there was error in the judgment from which the appeal was taken. Janet v. Scarpetti, 17 Conn. App. 825, 552 A.2d 1225 (1989); Manzin v. United Bank & Trust Co., 6 Conn. App. 513, 517, 506 A.2d 169 (1986); B. Holden & J. Daly, Connecticut Evidence § 60. After affording the claims of error the appropriate, scope of review, we conclude that the defendant has not met her burden.

There is no error.

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

Messenger v. Messenger, 559 A.2d 1193, 18 Conn. App. 825, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 200 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

559 A.2d 1193 (Messenger v. Messenger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Citytrust v. Page
610 A.2d 197 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1992)
Strother v. Strother
572 A.2d 391 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1990)