Star Enterprise v. Hanna

Connecticut Appellate Court

Star Enterprise v. Hanna

635 A.2d 889, 33 Conn. App. 924, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 10

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJanuary 4, 1994

Docket12230

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 635 A.2d 889 (Star Enterprise v. Hanna) 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

Star Enterprise v. Hanna, 635 A.2d 889, 33 Conn. App. 924, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 10 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal consists of two separate cases that were consolidated for the purposes of trial and appeal. The defendants in the first case, Richard Hanna and Robert N. Talarico, appeal from the judgment compelling them specifically to perform the option agreement contained in a written lease and finding for the plaintiff on each of the defendants’ counterclaims. They appeal as plaintiffs in the second case from the judgment rendered for the defendant in that case, Texaco, Inc.

Much of the evidence was disputed, but it is axiomatic that this court cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of witnesses. State v. Speers, 17 Conn. App. 587, 592, 554 A.2d 769, cert. denied, 211 Conn. 808, 559 A.2d 1142, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851, 110 S. Ct. 150, 107 L. Ed. 2d 108, cert. denied sub nom. George v. Connecticut, 493 U.S. 893, 110 S. Ct. 241, 107 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1989). The claims raised on appeal attack the court’s factual findings. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous or that its decision was otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book § 4061; see U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. K.J. Enterprises, Inc., 19 Conn. App. 806, 563 A.2d 1386, cert. denied, 212 Conn. 818, 565 A.2d 538 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1088, 110 S. Ct. 1155, 107 L. Ed. 2d 1058 (1990).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This appeal consists of two separate cases that were consolidated for the purposes of trial and appeal. The defendants in the first case, Richard Hanna and Robert N. Talarico, appeal from the judgment compelling them specifically to perform the option agreement contained in a written lease and finding for the plaintiff on each of the defendants’ counterclaims. They appeal as plaintiffs in the second case from the judgment rendered for the defendant in that case, Texaco, Inc.

Much of the evidence was disputed, but it is axiomatic that this court cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of witnesses. State v. Speers, 17 Conn. App. 587, 592, 554 A.2d 769, cert. denied, 211 Conn. 808, 559 A.2d 1142, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851, 110 S. Ct. 150, 107 L. Ed. 2d 108, cert. denied sub nom. George v. Connecticut, 493 U.S. 893, 110 S. Ct. 241, 107 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1989). The claims raised on appeal attack the court’s factual findings. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous or that its decision was otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book § 4061; see U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. K.J. Enterprises, Inc., 19 Conn. App. 806, 563 A.2d 1386, cert. denied, 212 Conn. 818, 565 A.2d 538 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1088, 110 S. Ct. 1155, 107 L. Ed. 2d 1058 (1990).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 A.2d 889, 33 Conn. App. 924, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/star-enterprise-v-hanna-connappct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack