Messenger v. Messenger

559 A.2d 1193, 18 Conn. App. 825, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 200
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJune 1, 1989
Docket7204
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
559 A.2d 1193, 18 Conn. App. 825, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/messenger-v-messenger-connappct-1989.