Legal Principles standard in Connecticut

2012Before addressing the merits of the defendant’s claim, we set forth the applicable legal principles and standard of review. “[A] claim of prosecutorial impropriety, even in the absence of an objection, has constitutional implications and requires a due process analysis under State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 535-40 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987).” State v. Gould, 290 Conn. 70, 77 , 961 A.2d 975 (2009).

2012Before addressing the merits of the defendant’s claim, we set forth the applicable legal principles and standard of review. “[A] claim of prosecutorial impropriety, even in the absence of an objection, has constitutional implications and requires a due process analysis under State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 535-40 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987).” State v. Gould, 290 Conn. 70, 77 , 961 A.2d 975 (2009).

2024Before we address the merits of the petitioner’s claim, we first set forth the legal principles and standard of review that guide our analy- sis. ‘‘Faced with a habeas court’s denial of a petition for certification to appeal, a petitioner can obtain appellate review of the [disposition] of his [or her] petition for habeas corpus only by satisfying the two-pronged test enunciated by our Supreme Court in Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 , 640 A.2d 601 (1994), and adopted in Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612 , 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

2024Before we address the merits of the petitioner’s claim, we first set forth the legal principles and standard of review that guide our analy- sis. ‘‘Faced with a habeas court’s denial of a petition for certification to appeal, a petitioner can obtain appellate review of the [disposition] of his [or her] petition for habeas corpus only by satisfying the two-pronged test enunciated by our Supreme Court in Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 , 640 A.2d 601 (1994), and adopted in Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612 , 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

2024Before we address the merits of the petitioner’s claim, we first set forth the legal principles and standard of review that guide our analy- sis. ‘‘Faced with a habeas court’s denial of a petition for certification to appeal, a petitioner can obtain appellate review of the [disposition] of his [or her] petition for habeas corpus only by satisfying the two-pronged test enunciated by our Supreme Court in Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 , 640 A.2d 601 (1994), and adopted in Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612 , 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

2024Before we address the merits of the petitioner’s claim, we first set forth the legal principles and standard of review that guide our analy- sis. ‘‘Faced with a habeas court’s denial of a petition for certification to appeal, a petitioner can obtain appellate review of the [disposition] of his [or her] petition for habeas corpus only by satisfying the two-pronged test enunciated by our Supreme Court in Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 , 640 A.2d 601 (1994), and adopted in Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612 , 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

2012Before addressing the merits of the defendant’s claim, we set forth the applicable legal principles and standard of review. “[A] claim of prosecutorial impropriety, even in the absence of an objection, has constitutional implications and requires a due process analysis under State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 535-40 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987).” State v. Gould, 290 Conn. 70, 77 , 961 A.2d 975 (2009).

2012Before addressing the merits of the defendant’s claim, we set forth the applicable legal principles and standard of review. “[A] claim of prosecutorial impropriety, even in the absence of an objection, has constitutional implications and requires a due process analysis under State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 535-40 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987).” State v. Gould, 290 Conn. 70, 77 , 961 A.2d 975 (2009).

2001Before considering the merits of the parties’ arguments, we set forth the basic legal principles and standard of review applicable to this appeal. “[I]n Ireland v. Wethersfield, 242 Conn. 550 , 698 A.2d 888 (1997), we [set forth] the legal tenets governing tax appeals brought pursuant to § 12-117a .... [T]he trial court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the [taxpayer’s] property. ...

2001Before considering the merits of the parties’ arguments, we set forth the basic legal principles and standard of review applicable to this appeal. “[I]n Ireland v. Wethersfield, 242 Conn. 550 , 698 A.2d 888 (1997), we [set forth] the legal tenets governing tax appeals brought pursuant to § 12-117a .... [T]he trial court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the [taxpayer’s] property. ...

2026We begin with the basic principle that “[a]n attorney’s actions can bind his client . . . .” (Citation omitted.) DeMattia v. Mauro, 86 Conn. App. 1 , 9 n.4, 860 A.2d 262 (2004). “[T]he relation- ship between attorneys and their clients is one of agency.

2026We begin with the basic principle that “[a]n attorney’s actions can bind his client . . . .” (Citation omitted.) DeMattia v. Mauro, 86 Conn. App. 1 , 9 n.4, 860 A.2d 262 (2004). “[T]he relation- ship between attorneys and their clients is one of agency.

2026Before addressing the merits of the defendant’s claims, we begin by setting forth the relevant legal principles and standard of review that govern our resolution of the defendant’s appeal. “[A] criminal defendant may seek sentence modification of or discharge from his sentence pursuant to § 53a-39.” (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Barnes, 227 Conn. App. 760, 770 , 323 A.3d 1166 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 922 , 325 A.3d 1093 (2024).

2025The following legal principles and standard of review are relevant to our analysis. ‘‘The applicability of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary.’’ Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511, 526 , 955 A.2d 667 (2008). ‘‘Under the doctrine of res judicata [or claim preclusion], a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with them, upon the same claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Milford v. Andresakis, 52 Conn. App. 454, 460

2025The following legal principles and standard of review are relevant to our analysis. ‘‘The applicability of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary.’’ Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511, 526 , 955 A.2d 667 (2008). ‘‘Under the doctrine of res judicata [or claim preclusion], a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with them, upon the same claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Milford v. Andresakis, 52 Conn. App. 454, 460

2025The following legal principles and standard of review are relevant to the petitioner’s claim. ‘‘To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a habeas petitioner must satisfy the two-pronged test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, [ 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2025The following legal principles and standard of review are relevant to the petitioner’s claim. ‘‘To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a habeas petitioner must satisfy the two-pronged test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, [ 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2025The following legal principles and standard of review are relevant to our analysis. ‘‘The applicability of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary.’’ Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511, 526 , 955 A.2d 667 (2008). ‘‘Under the doctrine of res judicata [or claim preclusion], a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with them, upon the same claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Milford v. Andresakis, 52 Conn. App. 454, 460

2025The following legal principles and standard of review are relevant to our analysis. ‘‘The applicability of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary.’’ Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511, 526 , 955 A.2d 667 (2008). ‘‘Under the doctrine of res judicata [or claim preclusion], a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with them, upon the same claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Milford v. Andresakis, 52 Conn. App. 454, 460

2025The following legal principles and standard of review are relevant to our analysis. ‘‘The applicability of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary.’’ Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511, 526 , 955 A.2d 667 (2008). ‘‘Under the doctrine of res judicata [or claim preclusion], a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with them, upon the same claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Milford v. Andresakis, 52 Conn. App. 454, 460

2025The following legal principles and standard of review are relevant to our analysis. ‘‘The applicability of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary.’’ Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511, 526 , 955 A.2d 667 (2008). ‘‘Under the doctrine of res judicata [or claim preclusion], a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with them, upon the same claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Milford v. Andresakis, 52 Conn. App. 454, 460

2025Generally, it is clear that [t]he court is not permitted to decide issues outside of those raised in the pleadings.’’ (Citation omit- ted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lynn v. Bosco, 182 Conn. App. 200, 213 , 189 A.3d 601 (2018).

2025Generally, it is clear that [t]he court is not permitted to decide issues outside of those raised in the pleadings.’’ (Citation omit- ted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Lynn v. Bosco, 182 Conn. App. 200, 213 , 189 A.3d 601 (2018).

2025The following legal principles and standard of review are relevant to our analysis. ‘‘The applicability of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary.’’ Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511, 526 , 955 A.2d 667 (2008). ‘‘Under the doctrine of res judicata [or claim preclusion], a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with them, upon the same claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Milford v. Andresakis, 52 Conn. App. 454, 460

2025The following legal principles and standard of review are relevant to our analysis. ‘‘The applicability of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary.’’ Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511, 526 , 955 A.2d 667 (2008). ‘‘Under the doctrine of res judicata [or claim preclusion], a final judgment, when rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action, between the same parties or those in privity with them, upon the same claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Milford v. Andresakis, 52 Conn. App. 454, 460

2025The trustee’s administration of the trust must comport with her duties of loyalty and prudence.’’ (Citations omitted.) Barash v. Lembo, 348 Conn. 264 , 285, 303 A.3d 577 (2023). ‘‘[I]n order to allege a claim against a trustee for breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, giving rise to a duty, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.’’ Id., 302–303.

2025Under § 52- 196a, ‘‘a party may file a special motion to dismiss when the opposing party’s complaint is based on the moving party’s exercise of, among other things, the right of free speech or the right to petition the government in connection with a matter of public concern.’’ Priore v. Haig, 344 Conn. 636 , 659, 280 A.3d 402 (2022).

2025The relevant legal principles and standard of review governing claims challenging an award of attorney’s fees are well settled. ‘‘Connecticut adheres to the so- called American rule, which prohibits the award of [attorney’s fees and costs] to the prevailing party unless such award is premised on statutory directives or is pursuant to contract.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Jacques v. Jacques, 223 Conn. App. 501, 507 , 309 A.3d 372 (2024). ‘‘Whether any award is to be made and the amount thereof lie within the discretion of the trial court . . . .

2024Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 364 State v. Bryan The following legal principles and standard of review are applicable to the defendant’s claims. ‘‘The determi- nation of whether a claim may be brought via a motion to correct an illegal sentence presents a question of law over which our review is plenary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 213 Conn. App. 848, 853 , 279 A.3d 303 , cert. denied, 345 Conn. 963 , 285 A.3d 387 (2022). ‘‘A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22 constitutes a narrow exception to the general rule tha

2024Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 364 State v. Bryan The following legal principles and standard of review are applicable to the defendant’s claims. ‘‘The determi- nation of whether a claim may be brought via a motion to correct an illegal sentence presents a question of law over which our review is plenary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 213 Conn. App. 848, 853 , 279 A.3d 303 , cert. denied, 345 Conn. 963 , 285 A.3d 387 (2022). ‘‘A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22 constitutes a narrow exception to the general rule tha

2024Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 364 State v. Bryan The following legal principles and standard of review are applicable to the defendant’s claims. ‘‘The determi- nation of whether a claim may be brought via a motion to correct an illegal sentence presents a question of law over which our review is plenary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 213 Conn. App. 848, 853 , 279 A.3d 303 , cert. denied, 345 Conn. 963 , 285 A.3d 387 (2022). ‘‘A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22 constitutes a narrow exception to the general rule tha

2024The court reasoned that ‘‘[t]he entire controversy is between the [defendant] and the [plaintiffs] who claim, as third-party beneficiar- ies, that they are entitled to receive certain benefits in 5 The defendant previously had raised the issue of nonjoinder in a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, but it later withdrew that basis for its motion to dismiss. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 19 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 21 Duso v. Groton the same manner as the ‘active’ police officers.’’ The court determined that it could ‘‘proceed to a decree without affecting any rights of the union.’’ We beg

2024The court reasoned that ‘‘[t]he entire controversy is between the [defendant] and the [plaintiffs] who claim, as third-party beneficiar- ies, that they are entitled to receive certain benefits in 5 The defendant previously had raised the issue of nonjoinder in a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, but it later withdrew that basis for its motion to dismiss. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 19 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 21 Duso v. Groton the same manner as the ‘active’ police officers.’’ The court determined that it could ‘‘proceed to a decree without affecting any rights of the union.’’ We beg

2024The court reasoned that ‘‘[t]he entire controversy is between the [defendant] and the [plaintiffs] who claim, as third-party beneficiar- ies, that they are entitled to receive certain benefits in 5 The defendant previously had raised the issue of nonjoinder in a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, but it later withdrew that basis for its motion to dismiss. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 19 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 21 Duso v. Groton the same manner as the ‘active’ police officers.’’ The court determined that it could ‘‘proceed to a decree without affecting any rights of the union.’’ We beg

2024The court reasoned that ‘‘[t]he entire controversy is between the [defendant] and the [plaintiffs] who claim, as third-party beneficiar- ies, that they are entitled to receive certain benefits in 5 The defendant previously had raised the issue of nonjoinder in a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, but it later withdrew that basis for its motion to dismiss. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 19 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 21 Duso v. Groton the same manner as the ‘active’ police officers.’’ The court determined that it could ‘‘proceed to a decree without affecting any rights of the union.’’ We beg

2024Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 364 State v. Bryan The following legal principles and standard of review are applicable to the defendant’s claims. ‘‘The determi- nation of whether a claim may be brought via a motion to correct an illegal sentence presents a question of law over which our review is plenary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 213 Conn. App. 848, 853 , 279 A.3d 303 , cert. denied, 345 Conn. 963 , 285 A.3d 387 (2022). ‘‘A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22 constitutes a narrow exception to the general rule tha

2024Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 364 State v. Bryan The following legal principles and standard of review are applicable to the defendant’s claims. ‘‘The determi- nation of whether a claim may be brought via a motion to correct an illegal sentence presents a question of law over which our review is plenary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 213 Conn. App. 848, 853 , 279 A.3d 303 , cert. denied, 345 Conn. 963 , 285 A.3d 387 (2022). ‘‘A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22 constitutes a narrow exception to the general rule tha

2024Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 364 State v. Bryan The following legal principles and standard of review are applicable to the defendant’s claims. ‘‘The determi- nation of whether a claim may be brought via a motion to correct an illegal sentence presents a question of law over which our review is plenary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 213 Conn. App. 848, 853 , 279 A.3d 303 , cert. denied, 345 Conn. 963 , 285 A.3d 387 (2022). ‘‘A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22 constitutes a narrow exception to the general rule tha

2022A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Beecher v. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Con- necticut, 282 Conn. 130, 134 , 918 A.2d 880 (2007). ‘‘A defect in process . . . implicates personal juris- diction . . . . [W]hen a particular method of serving process is set forth by statute, that method must be followed. . . .

2022A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Beecher v. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Con- necticut, 282 Conn. 130, 134 , 918 A.2d 880 (2007). ‘‘A defect in process . . . implicates personal juris- diction . . . . [W]hen a particular method of serving process is set forth by statute, that method must be followed. . . .

2021A property’s highest and best use is commonly defined as the use that will most likely produce the highest market value, greatest finan- cial return, or the most profit from the use of a particular piece of real estate.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis omit- ted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technol- ogies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11, 25 , 807 A.2d 955 (2002). ’’The highest and best use determination is inextrica- bly intertwined with the marketplace because fair mar- ket value is defined as the price that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller based on the highest and b

2021A property’s highest and best use is commonly defined as the use that will most likely produce the highest market value, greatest finan- cial return, or the most profit from the use of a particular piece of real estate.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis omit- ted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Technol- ogies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11, 25 , 807 A.2d 955 (2002). ’’The highest and best use determination is inextrica- bly intertwined with the marketplace because fair mar- ket value is defined as the price that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller based on the highest and b

2019Under this standard, we give every reasonable presumption in favor of a deci- sion’s correctness and will disturb the decision only where the trial court acted unreasonably or in a clear tion marks omitted.) GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford, 178 Conn. App. 287 , 294–95, 175 A.3d 582 (2017).

2019Under this standard, we give every reasonable presumption in favor of a deci- sion’s correctness and will disturb the decision only where the trial court acted unreasonably or in a clear tion marks omitted.) GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford, 178 Conn. App. 287 , 294–95, 175 A.3d 582 (2017).

2018"With respect to the evidentiary phase of a revocation proceeding, [t]o support a finding of probation violation, the evidence must induce a reasonable belief that it is more probable than not that the defendant has violated a condition of his or her probation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Megos , supra, 176 Conn. App. at 139 , 170 A.3d 120 .

2018"With respect to the evidentiary phase of a revocation proceeding, [t]o support a finding of probation violation, the evidence must induce a reasonable belief that it is more probable than not that the defendant has violated a condition of his or her probation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Megos , supra, 176 Conn. App. at 139 , 170 A.3d 120 .

2017"The elements of a breach of contract action are the formation of an agreement, performance **668 by one party, breach of the agreement by the other party and damages." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sullivan v. Thorndike , 104 Conn.App. 297 , 303, 934 A.2d 827 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 907 , 942 A.2d 415 (2008).

2017"The elements of a breach of contract action are the formation of an agreement, performance **668 by one party, breach of the agreement by the other party and damages." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sullivan v. Thorndike , 104 Conn.App. 297 , 303, 934 A.2d 827 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 907 , 942 A.2d 415 (2008).