unquestioned rule in Connecticut

1994In marital dissolution matters, “the action of the trial court will not be disturbed unless it abused its legal discretion, and in determining this the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. ” (Emphasis added.) Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 263 , 413 A.2d 854 (1979); see also Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 795 , 621 A.2d 267 (1993); Rostain v. Rostain, 214 Conn. 713, 716 , 573 A.2d 710 (1990); Blake v. Blake, 207 Conn. 217, 229 , 541 A.2d 1201 (1988).

1994In marital dissolution matters, “the action of the trial court will not be disturbed unless it abused its legal discretion, and in determining this the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. ” (Emphasis added.) Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 177 Conn. 259, 263 , 413 A.2d 854 (1979); see also Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 795 , 621 A.2d 267 (1993); Rostain v. Rostain, 214 Conn. 713, 716 , 573 A.2d 710 (1990); Blake v. Blake, 207 Conn. 217, 229 , 541 A.2d 1201 (1988).

2011“When reviewing claims under an abuse of discretion standard, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schilberg Integrated Metals Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 263 Conn. 245, 274 , 819 A.2d 773 (2003); see also Rocque v. Light Sources, Inc., 275 Conn. 420, 442 , 881 A.2d 230 (2005).

2011“When reviewing claims under an abuse of discretion standard, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schilberg Integrated Metals Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 263 Conn. 245, 274 , 819 A.2d 773 (2003); see also Rocque v. Light Sources, Inc., 275 Conn. 420, 442 , 881 A.2d 230 (2005).

2005In determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion, “the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279, 328-29 , 838 A.2d 135 (2004). “[T]he exercise of [the trial court’s] discretion will not constitute reversible error unless it has clearly been abused or harmful prejudice appears to have resulted.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn.

2005In determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion, “the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279, 328-29 , 838 A.2d 135 (2004). “[T]he exercise of [the trial court’s] discretion will not constitute reversible error unless it has clearly been abused or harmful prejudice appears to have resulted.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn.

2002In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Simmons v. Simmons, 244 Conn. 158, 174-75 , 708 A.2d 949 (1998). “[I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and eveiy reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 534 , 710 A.2d 757 (1998). “[W]e do not

2002In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Simmons v. Simmons, 244 Conn. 158, 174-75 , 708 A.2d 949 (1998). “[I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and eveiy reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 534 , 710 A.2d 757 (1998). “[W]e do not

2002In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Simmons v. Simmons, 244 Conn. 158, 174-75 , 708 A.2d 949 (1998). “[I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and eveiy reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 534 , 710 A.2d 757 (1998). “[W]e do not

2002In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Simmons v. Simmons, 244 Conn. 158, 174-75 , 708 A.2d 949 (1998). “[I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and eveiy reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 534 , 710 A.2d 757 (1998). “[W]e do not

1988In reviewing a claim that this discretion has been abused “ ‘ “the unquestioned rule is that ‘great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.’ Dudas v. Ward Baking Co., 104 Conn. 516, 518 , 133 A. 591 [1926] . . . .” Ardoline v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 555 , 102 A.2d 352 [1954].’ Camp v. Booth, 160 Conn. 10, 13 , 273 A.2d 714 [1970].” DiPalma v. Wiesen, 163 Conn. 293, 298 , 303 A.2d 709 (1972). “[T]he ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.

1988In reviewing a claim that this discretion has been abused “ ‘ “the unquestioned rule is that ‘great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.’ Dudas v. Ward Baking Co., 104 Conn. 516, 518 , 133 A. 591 [1926] . . . .” Ardoline v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 555 , 102 A.2d 352 [1954].’ Camp v. Booth, 160 Conn. 10, 13 , 273 A.2d 714 [1970].” DiPalma v. Wiesen, 163 Conn. 293, 298 , 303 A.2d 709 (1972). “[T]he ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.

2002In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Simmons v. Simmons, 244 Conn. 158, 174-75 , 708 A.2d 949 (1998). “[I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and eveiy reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 534 , 710 A.2d 757 (1998). “[W]e do not

2002In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Simmons v. Simmons, 244 Conn. 158, 174-75 , 708 A.2d 949 (1998). “[I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and eveiy reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Eldridge v. Eldridge, 244 Conn. 523, 534 , 710 A.2d 757 (1998). “[W]e do not

1977As we stated in DiPalma v. Wiesen, 163 Conn. 293, 298 , 303 A.2d 709 , cited in Pasquariello v. Pasquariello, . . . [ 168 Conn. 579, 584 , 362 A.2d 835 ] : ‘ “ ‘The action of the trial court is not to be disturbed unless it abused its legal discretion, and “[i]h determining this the unquestioned rule is that ‘great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.’ Dudas v. Ward Baking Co., 104 Conn. 516, 518 , 133 A. 591 . . . .” Ardoline v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 555 , 102 A.2d 352 .’ Camp v. Booth, 160 Conn. 10, 13 ,

1977As we stated in DiPalma v. Wiesen, 163 Conn. 293, 298 , 303 A.2d 709 , cited in Pasquariello v. Pasquariello, . . . [ 168 Conn. 579, 584 , 362 A.2d 835 ] : ‘ “ ‘The action of the trial court is not to be disturbed unless it abused its legal discretion, and “[i]h determining this the unquestioned rule is that ‘great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.’ Dudas v. Ward Baking Co., 104 Conn. 516, 518 , 133 A. 591 . . . .” Ardoline v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 555 , 102 A.2d 352 .’ Camp v. Booth, 160 Conn. 10, 13 ,

2019In determin- ing whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. . . . ‘‘[Further, in] determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. . . . [W]e do not review the evi- dence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stewart v. Stewart, 57 Conn.

2002In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. . . . “[I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. . . . [W]e do not review the evidence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stewart v. Stewart, 57 Conn. App. 335, 337 ,

2019In determin- ing whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. . . . ‘‘[Further, in] determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. . . . [W]e do not review the evi- dence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stewart v. Stewart, 57 Conn.

2002In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. . . . “[I]n determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. . . . [W]e do not review the evidence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stewart v. Stewart, 57 Conn. App. 335, 337 ,

2019In determin- ing whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. . . . ‘‘[Further, in] determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. . . . [W]e do not review the evi- dence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stewart v. Stewart, 57 Conn.

2019In determin- ing whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did. . . . ‘‘[Further, in] determining [whether there has been an abuse of discretion] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. . . . [W]e do not review the evi- dence to determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could have been reached.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stewart v. Stewart, 57 Conn.

2018"In reviewing a claim that [the] discretion [of the trial court] has been abused, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness .... [T]he ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Faile v. Stratford , 177 Conn. App. 183 , 201, 172 A.3d 206 (2017).

2018"In reviewing a claim that [the] discretion [of the trial court] has been abused, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness .... [T]he ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Faile v. Stratford , 177 Conn. App. 183 , 201, 172 A.3d 206 (2017).

2012“The court’s decision on whether to impose the sanction of excluding [an] expert’s testimony ... is not to be disturbed unless it abused its legal discretion, and [i]n determining this the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 233 .

2011In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wyszomierski v. Siracusa, 290 Conn. 225, 233 , 963 A.2d 943 (2009).

1985The action of the trial court is not to be disturbed unless legal discretion is abused, and “ [i]n determining this the unquestioned rule is that “great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” Dudas v. Ward Baking Co., 104 Conn. 516, 518 , 133 A. 591 [1926]; Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co., 90 Conn. 18, 20 , 96 A. 169 [1915].’ ” Camp v. Booth, 160 Conn. 10, 13 , 273 A.2d 714 (1970); Ardoline v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 555 , 102 A.2d 352 (1954).

1985The action of the trial court is not to be disturbed unless legal discretion is abused, and “ [i]n determining this the unquestioned rule is that “great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” Dudas v. Ward Baking Co., 104 Conn. 516, 518 , 133 A. 591 [1926]; Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co., 90 Conn. 18, 20 , 96 A. 169 [1915].’ ” Camp v. Booth, 160 Conn. 10, 13 , 273 A.2d 714 (1970); Ardoline v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 555 , 102 A.2d 352 (1954).

2022Under that standard, we must make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s rul- ing, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Our] review of such rulings is limited to the ques- tions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 135 Conn. App. 167 , 190–91, 43 A.3d 679 , cert. denied, 307 Conn. 905 , 53 A.3d 220 (2012); see also Ghio v. Liberty Ins.

2022Under that standard, we must make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s rul- ing, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Our] review of such rulings is limited to the ques- tions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 135 Conn. App. 167 , 190–91, 43 A.3d 679 , cert. denied, 307 Conn. 905 , 53 A.3d 220 (2012); see also Ghio v. Liberty Ins.

2020In reviewing a claim that this dis- cretion has been abused the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. . . . [T]he ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.’’ (Citation omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Evans v. General Motors Corp., 277 Conn. 496 , 522–23, 893 A.2d 371 (2006).14 Our Supreme Court has described three criteria for evaluating whether a court’s order of sanctions constitutes an abuse of dis- cretion.

2020In reviewing a claim that this dis- cretion has been abused the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. . . . [T]he ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.’’ (Citation omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Evans v. General Motors Corp., 277 Conn. 496 , 522–23, 893 A.2d 371 (2006).14 Our Supreme Court has described three criteria for evaluating whether a court’s order of sanctions constitutes an abuse of dis- cretion.

2017In reviewing claims that the trial court abused its discretion [in bifurcating certain issues at trial] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every *671 reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its *306 correctness; the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did ...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Saczynski v. Saczynski , 109 Conn.App. 426 , 428, 951 A.2d 670 (2008).

2017In reviewing claims that the trial court abused its discretion [in bifurcating certain issues at trial] the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every *671 reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its *306 correctness; the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did ...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Saczynski v. Saczynski , 109 Conn.App. 426 , 428, 951 A.2d 670 (2008).

2013When reviewing claims under an abuse of discretion standard, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg., Inc., 265 Conn. 1, 7 , 826 A.2d 1088 (2003).

2013When reviewing claims under an abuse of discretion standard, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg., Inc., 265 Conn. 1, 7 , 826 A.2d 1088 (2003).

2009In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cavallaro v. Hospital of Saint Raphael, 92 Conn. App. 59, 66 , 882 A.2d 1254 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 926 , 888 A.2d 93 (2005). *234 In Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1, 9-11 , 776 A.2d 1115 (2001), we “recognized that, apart from a specific rule of practice authorizing a sanction, the trial court has the inherent power to provide for the imposition of reasonable sanctions, to compel the ob

2006In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cavallaro v. Hospital of *848 Saint Raphael, 92 Conn. App. 59, 65-66 , 882 A.2d 1254 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 926 , 888 A.2d 93 (2005).

2009In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cavallaro v. Hospital of Saint Raphael, 92 Conn. App. 59, 66 , 882 A.2d 1254 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 926 , 888 A.2d 93 (2005). *234 In Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1, 9-11 , 776 A.2d 1115 (2001), we “recognized that, apart from a specific rule of practice authorizing a sanction, the trial court has the inherent power to provide for the imposition of reasonable sanctions, to compel the ob

2006In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cavallaro v. Hospital of *848 Saint Raphael, 92 Conn. App. 59, 65-66 , 882 A.2d 1254 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 926 , 888 A.2d 93 (2005).

2009In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cavallaro v. Hospital of Saint Raphael, 92 Conn. App. 59, 66 , 882 A.2d 1254 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 926 , 888 A.2d 93 (2005). *234 In Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1, 9-11 , 776 A.2d 1115 (2001), we “recognized that, apart from a specific rule of practice authorizing a sanction, the trial court has the inherent power to provide for the imposition of reasonable sanctions, to compel the ob

2009In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cavallaro v. Hospital of Saint Raphael, 92 Conn. App. 59, 66 , 882 A.2d 1254 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 926 , 888 A.2d 93 (2005). *234 In Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1, 9-11 , 776 A.2d 1115 (2001), we “recognized that, apart from a specific rule of practice authorizing a sanction, the trial court has the inherent power to provide for the imposition of reasonable sanctions, to compel the ob

2008“In reviewing claims that the trial court abused its discretion the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness; the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re *429 Jose C., 11 Conn. App. 507, 508 , 527 A.2d 1239 (1987).

2008“In reviewing claims that the trial court abused its discretion the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness; the ultimate issue is whether the court could reasonably conclude as it did . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re *429 Jose C., 11 Conn. App. 507, 508 , 527 A.2d 1239 (1987).

2008“When reviewing claims under an abuse of discretion standard, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gevers v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 94 Conn. App. 478, 488-89 , 892 A.2d 979 (2006).

2008“When reviewing claims under an abuse of discretion standard, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gevers v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 94 Conn. App. 478, 488-89 , 892 A.2d 979 (2006).

2007In considering whether the trial court abused *942 its discretion, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness. . . ." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Coughlin, 61 Conn.App. 90, 95-96 , 762 A.2d 1 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934 , 767 A.2d 105 (2001).

2007In considering whether the trial court abused its discretion, the unquestioned rule is that great weight is due to the action of the trial court and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of its correctness . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Coughlin, 61 Conn. App. 90, 95-96 , 762 A.2d 1 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934 , 767 A.2d 105 (2001).