Legal Opinion
Nulman v. Weill
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided January 26, 1988No. 4893; 4894PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
The appellants challenge a judgment rendered by the trial court removing the plaintiff as a coexecutor of the decedent’s estate on the ground that the facts found by the trial court were erroneous. *750An appellate court may not retry facts and its duty upon review of such a claim is limited to a determination of whether the trial court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in this respect or otherwise contrary to law. Practice Book § 4061; Damora v. Christ-Janer, 184 Conn. 109, 113, 441 A.2d 61 (1981); Ram Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. A.B.C. Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2 Conn. App. 54, 56, 475 A.2d 341…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Appliances, Inc. v. YostSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Damora v. Christ-JanerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Edgewood Construction Co. v. West Haven Redevelopment AgencySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Hallmark of Farmington v. RoyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1983
- Essex Savings Bank v. LeekerConnecticut Appellate Court · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Girgenti v. Cali-Con, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- Bridge Street Associates v. Water Pollution Control Authority of SuffieldConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- Henry v. KleinConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- Planning & Zoning Commission of Lisbon v. DesrosierConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- Parkview Paving Co. v. City of New HavenConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.