Sheikh v. Sheikh

Connecticut Appellate Court

Sheikh v. Sheikh

636 A.2d 866, 33 Conn. App. 927, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 21

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJanuary 25, 1994

Docket11945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 636 A.2d 866 (Sheikh v. Sheikh) 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

Sheikh v. Sheikh, 636 A.2d 866, 33 Conn. App. 927, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 21 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a marriage dissolution action in which the defendant challenges the trial court’s financial and visitation orders as well as its rulings relating to disclosure of the plaintiff’s interest in a general partnership.

Our standard of review in domestic relations cases is very narrow, and we will afford great deference to a trial court’s rulings. Roach v. Roach, 20 Conn. App. 500, 505, 568 A.2d 1037 (1990). “We will not reverse such a ruling unless the appellant demonstrates that the court has misapplied the law or could not reasonably have reached its conclusions.” Curzi v. Curzi, 21 Conn. App. 5, 7, 570 A.2d 1134, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 802, 574 A.2d 217 (1990). Our review of the record indicates that the trial court acted within its broad discretion. Specifically, the record fails to disclose that the factual findings of the court were clearly erroneous in view of the evidence, that the decision was otherwise erroneous in law; Practice Book § 4061; or unsupported by the evidence. Cromwell Common Associates v. Koziura, 21 Conn. App. 1, 5, 570 A.2d 1131 (1990).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a marriage dissolution action in which the defendant challenges the trial court’s financial and visitation orders as well as its rulings relating to disclosure of the plaintiff’s interest in a general partnership.

Our standard of review in domestic relations cases is very narrow, and we will afford great deference to a trial court’s rulings. Roach v. Roach, 20 Conn. App. 500, 505, 568 A.2d 1037 (1990). “We will not reverse such a ruling unless the appellant demonstrates that the court has misapplied the law or could not reasonably have reached its conclusions.” Curzi v. Curzi, 21 Conn. App. 5, 7, 570 A.2d 1134, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 802, 574 A.2d 217 (1990). Our review of the record indicates that the trial court acted within its broad discretion. Specifically, the record fails to disclose that the factual findings of the court were clearly erroneous in view of the evidence, that the decision was otherwise erroneous in law; Practice Book § 4061; or unsupported by the evidence. Cromwell Common Associates v. Koziura, 21 Conn. App. 1, 5, 570 A.2d 1131 (1990).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 A.2d 866, 33 Conn. App. 927, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheikh-v-sheikh-connappct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack