Legal Opinion
Vitale v. Crocco
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided December 1, 1983No. (2084)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
The plaintiff, a layman, tried his own case and prepared and argued his appeal in this court. On reviewing the matter, we have followed the liberal policy usual where a layman appears pro se and have carefully considered his claims as far as they are fairly presented upon the record. Higgins v. Hartford County Bar Assn., 111 Conn. 47, 51-52, 149 A. 415 (1930). It is obvious, however, that there is no merit to his claims and that no injustice has been done him under the law.
As we view the record, this appeal amounts to a request addressed to this court to accept, upon conflicting evidence…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Town of ManchesterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- African Methodist Episcopal Church v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Higgins v. Hartford County Bar Asso.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Katz v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Setaro Motors, Inc. v. IntelisanoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
3Cited by5 opinions
- Shuster v. BuckleyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1985
- Vitale v. NuzzoDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1986
- Maloney v. MaloneyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- Christian Brothers, Inc. v. South Windsor Arena, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1986
- Ferraro v. LaurettiConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991