Legal Opinion

Morande v. Newman Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided October 22, 1985No. 2988PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

This appeal constitutes no more than another request that we accept, upon conflicting evidence presented by the parties at the trial, the plaintiffs version of the facts. Both the Supreme Court and this court have “repeatedly criticized and attempted, apparently in vain, to discourage this misuse of the appellate process.” Connecticut National Bank v. Nagy, 2 Conn. App. 448, 479 A.2d 1224 (1984); Munn v. Scalera, 181 Conn. 527, 530, 436 A.2d 18 (1980).

The trial court’s memorandum of decision clearly indicates that the factual finding which the plaintiff challenges was based on the court’s…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Morgan v. HillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
  2. Vesce v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  3. Branigan v. CohenConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
  4. Munn v. ScaleraSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
  5. Connecticut National Bank v. NagyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1984

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sands Associates v. RiosConnecticut Appellate Court · 1986
  2. Kimbrell v. RossittoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1986
  3. Colonial Bank v. ForishConnecticut Appellate Court · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API