Morande v. Newman Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Morande v. Newman Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

499 A.2d 78, 5 Conn. App. 423, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 1162

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedOctober 22, 1985

Docket2988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 499 A.2d 78 (Morande v. Newman Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.) 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

Morande v. Newman Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 499 A.2d 78, 5 Conn. App. 423, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 1162 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal constitutes no more than another request that we accept, upon conflicting evidence presented by the parties at the trial, the plaintiffs version of the facts. Both the Supreme Court and this court have “repeatedly criticized and attempted, apparently in vain, to discourage this misuse of the appellate process.” Connecticut National Bank v. Nagy, 2 Conn. App. 448, 479 A.2d 1224 (1984); Munn v. Scalera, 181 Conn. 527, 530, 436 A.2d 18 (1980).

The trial court’s memorandum of decision clearly indicates that the factual finding which the plaintiff challenges was based on the court’s assessment of his own testimony. Nothing in our law is more elementary than that the trier is the final judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be accorded their testimony. Morgan v. Hill, 139 Conn. 159, 161, 90 A.2d 641 (1952). Our function is restricted to determining whether the facts found are supported by the evidence or whether the facts as found are clearly erroneous [424]*424in light of the evidence and the record as a whole. Branigan v. Cohen, 3 Conn. App. 580, 581, 490 A.2d 1019 (1985).

Our review of the record establishes that the challenged facts are supported by the evidence, that they are not clearly erroneous, and that the court’s conclusions based on those facts are legally and logically correct. See Vesce v. Lee, 185 Conn. 328, 335, 441 A.2d 556 (1981).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This appeal constitutes no more than another request that we accept, upon conflicting evidence presented by the parties at the trial, the plaintiffs version of the facts. Both the Supreme Court and this court have “repeatedly criticized and attempted, apparently in vain, to discourage this misuse of the appellate process.” Connecticut National Bank v. Nagy, 2 Conn. App. 448, 479 A.2d 1224 (1984); Munn v. Scalera, 181 Conn. 527, 530, 436 A.2d 18 (1980).

The trial court’s memorandum of decision clearly indicates that the factual finding which the plaintiff challenges was based on the court’s assessment of his own testimony. Nothing in our law is more elementary than that the trier is the final judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be accorded their testimony. Morgan v. Hill, 139 Conn. 159, 161, 90 A.2d 641 (1952). Our function is restricted to determining whether the facts found are supported by the evidence or whether the facts as found are clearly erroneous [424]*424in light of the evidence and the record as a whole. Branigan v. Cohen, 3 Conn. App. 580, 581, 490 A.2d 1019 (1985).

Our review of the record establishes that the challenged facts are supported by the evidence, that they are not clearly erroneous, and that the court’s conclusions based on those facts are legally and logically correct. See Vesce v. Lee, 185 Conn. 328, 335, 441 A.2d 556 (1981).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 A.2d 78, 5 Conn. App. 423, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 1162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morande-v-newman-lincoln-mercury-inc-connappct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack