party seeking plain error in Connecticut

2022Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Darryl W., 303 Conn. 353, 373 , 33 A.3d 239 (2012).

2022Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Darryl W., 303 Conn. 353, 373 , 33 A.3d 239 (2012).

2015Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crawford v. Com- missioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 , 204–205, 982 A.2d 620 (2009).

2015Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crawford v. Com- missioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 , 204–205, 982 A.2d 620 (2009).

2019Because [a] party cannot prevail under plain error unless it has demonstrated that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice ... under the second prong of the analysis we must determine whether the consequences of the error are so grievous as to be fundamentally unfair or manifestly unjust." (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Clougherty v. Clougherty , 131 Conn. App. 270 , 273-74, 26 A.3d 704 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 948 , 31 A.3d 383 (2011).

2019Because [a] party cannot prevail under plain error unless it has demonstrated that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice ... under the second prong of the analysis we must determine whether the consequences of the error are so grievous as to be fundamentally unfair or manifestly unjust." (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Clougherty v. Clougherty , 131 Conn. App. 270 , 273-74, 26 A.3d 704 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 948 , 31 A.3d 383 (2011).

2019Because [a] party cannot prevail under plain error unless it has demonstrated that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice ... under the second prong of the analysis we must determine whether the consequences of the error are so grievous as to be fundamentally unfair or manifestly unjust." (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Clougherty v. Clougherty , 131 Conn. App. 270 , 273-74, 26 A.3d 704 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 948 , 31 A.3d 383 (2011).

2014Because [a] party cannot prevail under plain error unless it has demonstrated that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice . . . under the second prong of the analysis we must determine whether the conse- quences of the error are so grievous as to be fundamen- tally unfair or manifestly unjust.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Clougherty v. Clougherty, 131 Conn. App. 270 , 273–74, 26 A.3d 704 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 948 , 31 A.3d 383 (2011).

2025Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisput- able as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of rever- sal.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Kyle A., 348 Conn. 437, 445 , 307 A.3d 249 (2024).

2025Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kyle A., 348 Conn. 437, 445 , 307 A.3d 249 (2024). 20 Probate Court form PC-200 is titled ‘‘ ‘Petition/Administration or Probate of Will,’ and contains an instruction that ‘[a]ny person may use this form to petition the court for administration or probate of a will and the appoint- ment of an administrator or executor.’ ’’ Vecchiarino v. Potter, 223

2024Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Coccomo, 302 Conn. 664, 685 , 31 A.3d 1012 (2011).

2024Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Coccomo, 302 Conn. 664, 685 , 31 A.3d 1012 (2011).

2019Because [a] party cannot prevail under plain error unless it has demonstrated that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice ... under the second prong of the analysis we must determine whether the consequences of the error are so grievous as to be fundamentally unfair or manifestly unjust." (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Clougherty v. Clougherty , 131 Conn. App. 270 , 273-74, 26 A.3d 704 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 948 , 31 A.3d 383 (2011).

2014Because [a] party cannot prevail under plain error unless it has demonstrated that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice . . . under the second prong of the analysis we must determine whether the conse- quences of the error are so grievous as to be fundamen- tally unfair or manifestly unjust.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Clougherty v. Clougherty, 131 Conn. App. 270 , 273–74, 26 A.3d 704 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 948 , 31 A.3d 383 (2011).

2025Our Supreme Court has ‘‘noticed plain error in the failure of a trial court to apply a clearly relevant statute to the case before it.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ralto Developers, Inc. v. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 9 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 11 Cruz v. Waterbury Environmental Impact Commission, 220 Conn. 54, 59 , 594 A.2d 981 (1991). ‘‘Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly. . . . [When] a claim . . . receives only cursory attention in the brief without sub- stantive disc

2025Our Supreme Court has ‘‘noticed plain error in the failure of a trial court to apply a clearly relevant statute to the case before it.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ralto Developers, Inc. v. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 9 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 11 Cruz v. Waterbury Environmental Impact Commission, 220 Conn. 54, 59 , 594 A.2d 981 (1991). ‘‘Analysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue properly. . . . [When] a claim . . . receives only cursory attention in the brief without sub- stantive disc

2025Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kyle A., 348 Conn. 437, 445 , 307 A.3d 249 (2024). 20 Probate Court form PC-200 is titled ‘‘ ‘Petition/Administration or Probate of Will,’ and contains an instruction that ‘[a]ny person may use this form to petition the court for administration or probate of a will and the appoint- ment of an administrator or executor.’ ’’ Vecchiarino v. Potter, 223

2024The court may in the interests of justice notice plain error not brought to the attention of the trial court. . . .’’ 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 25 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 27 State v. Daniels v. Waters, 214 Conn. App. 294 , 315–16, 280 A.3d 601 , cert. denied, 345 Conn. 914 , 284 A.3d 25 (2022).

2024Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Marafi v. El Achchabi, 225 Conn. App. 415, 438 , 316 A.3d 798 (2024).

2019Only if both prongs of the analysis are satisfied can the appealing party obtain relief.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ruocco, 151 Conn. App. 732 , 739–40, 95 A.3d 573 (2014), aff’d, 322 Conn. 796 , 144 A.3d 354 (2016).

2019Only if both prongs of the analysis are satisfied can the appealing party obtain relief.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ruocco, 151 Conn. App. 732 , 739–40, 95 A.3d 573 (2014), aff’d, 322 Conn. 796 , 144 A.3d 354 (2016).

2018Only if both prongs of the analysis are satisfied can the appealing party obtain relief." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Healey v. Haymond Law Firm, P.C. , 174 Conn. App. 230 , 245, 166 A.3d 10 (2017).

2018Only if both prongs of the analysis are satisfied can the appealing party obtain relief." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Healey v. Haymond Law Firm, P.C. , 174 Conn. App. 230 , 245, 166 A.3d 10 (2017).

2017Only if both prongs of the analysis are satisfied can the appealing party obtain relief." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jah'za G. , 141 Conn.App. 15 , 22, 60 A.3d 392 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 926 , 64 A.3d 329 (2013).

2017Only if both prongs of the analysis are satisfied can the appealing party obtain relief." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Jah'za G. , 141 Conn.App. 15 , 22, 60 A.3d 392 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 926 , 64 A.3d 329 (2013).

2017With respect to the second prong, an appellant must demonstrate "that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers , 290 Conn. 278 , 288, 963 A.2d 11 (2009).

2017With respect to the second prong, an appellant must demonstrate "that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers , 290 Conn. 278 , 288, 963 A.2d 11 (2009).

2017With respect to the first prong, the claimed error must be "patent [or] readily [discernible] on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also ... obvious in the sense of not debatable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. ; see also State v. Coward , 292 Conn. 296 , 307, 972 A.2d 691 (2009) ("the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was ... clear, obvious and indisputable").