Tucker v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Tucker v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.

509 A.2d 1059, 7 Conn. App. 554, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 998

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 3, 1986

Docket4063

StatusPublished

This text of 509 A.2d 1059 (Tucker v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.) 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

Tucker v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 509 A.2d 1059, 7 Conn. App. 554, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 998 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant on the first count, [555]*555and the court directed a verdict for the defendant on the second count. The plaintiff did not move to set aside the verdicts thereby limiting our review to the standard of plain error. Practice Book § 3063; Pietrorazio v. Santopietro, 185 Conn. 510, 513-16, 441 A.2d 163 (1981); Eagar v. Barron, 2 Conn. App. 468, 472, 480 A.2d 576 (1984).

Our review of the record, transcripts and briefs submitted in this case and our analysis of only those claims of error raised by the plaintiff that are properly before us fail to indicate that the trial court committed plain error with regard to any such claims.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant on the first count, [555]*555and the court directed a verdict for the defendant on the second count. The plaintiff did not move to set aside the verdicts thereby limiting our review to the standard of plain error. Practice Book § 3063; Pietrorazio v. Santopietro, 185 Conn. 510, 513-16, 441 A.2d 163 (1981); Eagar v. Barron, 2 Conn. App. 468, 472, 480 A.2d 576 (1984).

Our review of the record, transcripts and briefs submitted in this case and our analysis of only those claims of error raised by the plaintiff that are properly before us fail to indicate that the trial court committed plain error with regard to any such claims.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 A.2d 1059, 7 Conn. App. 554, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-connecticut-light-power-co-connappct-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack