Puglio v. Paniccia

Connecticut Appellate Court

Puglio v. Paniccia

548 A.2d 1350, 16 Conn. App. 807, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 427, 1988 WL 112673

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedOctober 11, 1988

Docket6408

StatusPublished

This text of 548 A.2d 1350 (Puglio v. Paniccia) 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

Puglio v. Paniccia, 548 A.2d 1350, 16 Conn. App. 807, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 427, 1988 WL 112673 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants claim that the court erred in overruling objections to testimony and in denying their motion for judgment for failure of the plaintiff to produce expert testimony. We find no error.

When error is claimed in rulings such as those complained of, the brief or appendix must include the pertinent motion, if it does not appear in the printed record; the question; the objection and the ground on which it was based; the ground on which the evidence was claimed to be admissible; the answer, if any; the ruling; and any exception. Practice Book § 4065 (d) (3). This rule has not been complied with and we will not consider the claims asserted. Henry v. Klein, 15 Conn. App. 496, 500, 545 A.2d 575 (1988).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants claim that the court erred in overruling objections to testimony and in denying their motion for judgment for failure of the plaintiff to produce expert testimony. We find no error.

When error is claimed in rulings such as those complained of, the brief or appendix must include the pertinent motion, if it does not appear in the printed record; the question; the objection and the ground on which it was based; the ground on which the evidence was claimed to be admissible; the answer, if any; the ruling; and any exception. Practice Book § 4065 (d) (3). This rule has not been complied with and we will not consider the claims asserted. Henry v. Klein, 15 Conn. App. 496, 500, 545 A.2d 575 (1988).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 A.2d 1350, 16 Conn. App. 807, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 427, 1988 WL 112673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puglio-v-paniccia-connappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack