Sebestyen v. Sebestyen

563 A.2d 1386, 19 Conn. App. 807, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 283
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedAugust 11, 1989
Docket6488
StatusPublished

This text of 563 A.2d 1386 (Sebestyen v. Sebestyen) 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
Sebestyen v. Sebestyen, 563 A.2d 1386, 19 Conn. App. 807, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 283 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have carefully considered each of the claims of error in the defendant’s appeal and in the plaintiff’s cross appeal. Our review of the record and briefs, coupled with an analysis of the claims of error by the parties, indicates that the trial court acted reasonably, in the exercise of its discretion and in accordance with the law.

More particularly, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs and expenses of litigation to the plaintiff. Stoner v. Stoner, 163 Conn. 345, 353-56, 307 A.2d 146 (1972); see also Turgeon v. Turgeon, 190 Conn. 269, 280-83, 460 A.2d 1260 (1983).

There is no error.

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

Related

Stoner v. Stoner
307 A.2d 146 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1972)
Turgeon v. Turgeon
460 A.2d 1260 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
563 A.2d 1386, 19 Conn. App. 807, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sebestyen-v-sebestyen-connappct-1989.