Schaeffer v. Schaeffer

Connecticut Appellate Court

Schaeffer v. Schaeffer

546 A.2d 344, 15 Conn. App. 820, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 317

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 30, 1988

Docket6184

StatusPublished

This text of 546 A.2d 344 (Schaeffer v. Schaeffer) 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

Schaeffer v. Schaeffer, 546 A.2d 344, 15 Conn. App. 820, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 317 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have carefully examined the records, transcripts and briefs submitted to us on this appeal. After affording the plaintiff’s claims of error the appropriate scope of review, to the extent that they have been properly presented, we conclude that the trial court correctly applied the law to the evidence. We cannot retry the case. Stiepel v. Cone, 14 Conn. App. 815, 541 A.2d 547 (1988).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

We have carefully examined the records, transcripts and briefs submitted to us on this appeal. After affording the plaintiff’s claims of error the appropriate scope of review, to the extent that they have been properly presented, we conclude that the trial court correctly applied the law to the evidence. We cannot retry the case. Stiepel v. Cone, 14 Conn. App. 815, 541 A.2d 547 (1988).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 A.2d 344, 15 Conn. App. 820, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaeffer-v-schaeffer-connappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack