party making claim in Connecticut

2000The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cahn v. Cahn , 225 Conn. 666 , 678 , 525 A.2d 954 (1987).

1993The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 565-66 .

1996To put it in the vernacular, "evident partiality" exists where it reasonably looks as though a given arbitrator would tend to favor one of the parties.'" (Citations omitted.) Vincent Builders v. American Application Systems, 16 Conn. App. 486 , 494-95 , 547 A.2d 1381 (1988).

1996To put it in the vernacular, "evident partiality" exists where it reasonably looks as though a given arbitrator would tend to favor one of the parties.'" (Citations omitted.) Vincent Builders v. American Application Systems, 16 Conn. App. 486 , 494-95 , 547 A.2d 1381 (1988).

2002Darrow v. Fleischner , 117 Conn. 518 (1933).

2001Darrow v. Fleischner, 117 Conn. 518 (1933).

2000The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cahn v. Cahn , 225 Conn. 666 , 678 , 525 A.2d 954 (1987).

1994The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cahn v. Cahn, 225 Conn. 666, 678 , 626 A.2d 296 (1993).

2000"To conclude that a stipulated judgment resulted from duress, the finder of fact must determine that the misconduct of one party induced the party seeking to avoid the stipulated judgment to manifest assent thereto, not as an exercise of that party's free will but because that party had no reasonable alternative in light of the circumstances as that party perceived them to be." Jenks v. Jenks , 232 Conn. 750 , 753 (1995).

2000"To conclude that a stipulated judgment resulted from duress, the finder of fact must determine that the misconduct of one party induced the party seeking to avoid the stipulated judgment to manifest assent thereto, not as an exercise of that party's free will but because that party had no reasonable alternative in light of the circumstances as that party perceived them to be." Jenks v. Jenks , 232 Conn. 750 , 753 (1995).

2000“The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pelarinos v. Henderson, 34 Conn. App. 726, 728-29 , 643 A.2d 894 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 909 , 648 A.2d 155 (1994).

2000“The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pelarinos v. Henderson, 34 Conn. App. 726, 728-29 , 643 A.2d 894 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 909 , 648 A.2d 155 (1994).

2000“The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pelarinos v. Henderson, 34 Conn. App. 726, 728-29 , 643 A.2d 894 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 909 , 648 A.2d 155 (1994).

2000“The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pelarinos v. Henderson, 34 Conn. App. 726, 728-29 , 643 A.2d 894 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 909 , 648 A.2d 155 (1994).

2000Where a party seeks to avoid a contract on the ground of duress, the question in each case is whether the party making that claim was "put in fear by the other party to the transaction for the purpose of obtaining an advantage over him [and was] deprived of the free exercise of his will power, and was such advantage thereby obtained?" McCarthy v. Taniska , 84 Conn. 377 , 382 (1911).

2000Where a party seeks to avoid a contract on the ground of duress, the question in each case is whether the party making that claim was "put in fear by the other party to the transaction for the purpose of obtaining an advantage over him [and was] deprived of the free exercise of his will power, and was such advantage thereby obtained?" McCarthy v. Taniska , 84 Conn. 377 , 382 (1911).

1976Nikitiuk v. Pishtey, 153 Conn. 545, 552-53 .

1976Nikitiuk v. Pishtey, 153 Conn. 545 , 552-53 .

2003The court cautions that de novo review should not be granted "without first determining that the challenge truly braces a legitimate and colorable claim of violation of public policy." Id.

2002The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mack v. LaValley , 55 Conn. App. 150 , 153 , 738 A.2d 718 , cert. denied, 251 Conn. 928 , 742 A.2d 363 (1999) "Pursuant to Practice Book § [13-31 (b)], . . . objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cooks v. O'Brien Properties, Inc ., 48 Conn.

2002The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mack v. LaValley , 55 Conn. App. 150 , 153 , 738 A.2d 718 , cert. denied, 251 Conn. 928 , 742 A.2d 363 (1999) "Pursuant to Practice Book § [13-31 (b)], . . . objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cooks v. O'Brien Properties, Inc ., 48 Conn.

2002The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mack v. LaValley , 55 Conn. App. 150 , 153 , 738 A.2d 718 , cert. denied, 251 Conn. 928 , 742 A.2d 363 (1999) "Pursuant to Practice Book § [13-31 (b)], . . . objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cooks v. O'Brien Properties, Inc ., 48 Conn.

2002The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mack v. LaValley , 55 Conn. App. 150 , 153 , 738 A.2d 718 , cert. denied, 251 Conn. 928 , 742 A.2d 363 (1999) "Pursuant to Practice Book § [13-31 (b)], . . . objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cooks v. O'Brien Properties, Inc ., 48 Conn.

2002The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mack v. LaValley , 55 Conn. App. 150 , 153 , 738 A.2d 718 , cert. denied, 251 Conn. 928 , 742 A.2d 363 (1999) "Pursuant to Practice Book § [13-31 (b)], . . . objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cooks v. O'Brien Properties, Inc ., 48 Conn.

2002The party making the claim of error has the burden of showing that the court clearly abused its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mack v. LaValley , 55 Conn. App. 150 , 153 , 738 A.2d 718 , cert. denied, 251 Conn. 928 , 742 A.2d 363 (1999) "Pursuant to Practice Book § [13-31 (b)], . . . objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cooks v. O'Brien Properties, Inc ., 48 Conn.

1994Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 205 Conn. 703 , 707 (1988). "[Z]oning regulations and ordinances, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed and not extended by implication." Schwartz v. Planning Zoning Commission , 208 Conn. 146 , 153 , (1988).

1994Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 205 Conn. 703 , 707 (1988). "[Z]oning regulations and ordinances, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed and not extended by implication." Schwartz v. Planning Zoning Commission , 208 Conn. 146 , 153 , (1988).

1987Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 495 , 234 A.2d 825 (1967); State v. DeMartin, 153 Conn. 708, 710 , 216 A.2d 204 (1965); Shaywitz v. Singing Oaks Day Camp, Inc., 8 Conn. App. 71, 73 , 510 A.2d 1013 (1986).

1987Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 495 , 234 A.2d 825 (1967); State v. DeMartin, 153 Conn. 708, 710 , 216 A.2d 204 (1965); Shaywitz v. Singing Oaks Day Camp, Inc., 8 Conn. App. 71, 73 , 510 A.2d 1013 (1986).

1987Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 495 , 234 A.2d 825 (1967); State v. DeMartin, 153 Conn. 708, 710 , 216 A.2d 204 (1965); Shaywitz v. Singing Oaks Day Camp, Inc., 8 Conn. App. 71, 73 , 510 A.2d 1013 (1986).

1987Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 495 , 234 A.2d 825 (1967); State v. DeMartin, 153 Conn. 708, 710 , 216 A.2d 204 (1965); Shaywitz v. Singing Oaks Day Camp, Inc., 8 Conn. App. 71, 73 , 510 A.2d 1013 (1986).

1987Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 495 , 234 A.2d 825 (1967); State v. DeMartin, 153 Conn. 708, 710 , 216 A.2d 204 (1965); Shaywitz v. Singing Oaks Day Camp, Inc., 8 Conn. App. 71, 73 , 510 A.2d 1013 (1986).

1987Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 495 , 234 A.2d 825 (1967); State v. DeMartin, 153 Conn. 708, 710 , 216 A.2d 204 (1965); Shaywitz v. Singing Oaks Day Camp, Inc., 8 Conn. App. 71, 73 , 510 A.2d 1013 (1986).