Cloud error in Connecticut

2005Co., 29 Conn. App. 552, 558 , 616 A.2d 819 (1992).

2005Co., 29 Conn. App. 552, 558 , 616 A.2d 819 (1992).

2001“The general verdict rule operates to prevent an appellate court from disturbing a verdict that may have been reached under a cloud of error, but is nonetheless valid because the jury may have taken an untainted route in reaching its verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kunst v. Vitale, 42 Conn. App. 528 , 535 n.4, 680 A.2d 339 (1996).

2001“The general verdict rule operates to prevent an appellate court from disturbing a verdict that may have been reached under a cloud of error, but is nonetheless valid because the jury may have taken an untainted route in reaching its verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kunst v. Vitale, 42 Conn. App. 528 , 535 n.4, 680 A.2d 339 (1996).

2021In the present case, we analyze the applicability of the general verdict rule under the fourth scenario because the pleadings here included a denial of the complaint and the assertion of a special defense.13 As this court has noted, the general verdict rule ‘‘operates . . . to insulate a verdict that may have been reached under a cloud of error, but which also could have been reached by an untainted route.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Klein v. Quinnipiac Univer- sity, 193 Conn. App. 469 , 487, 219 A.3d 911 (2019), appeal dismissed, Conn. , A.3d (2020).

2021In the present case, we analyze the applicability of the general verdict rule under the fourth scenario because the pleadings here included a denial of the complaint and the assertion of a special defense.13 As this court has noted, the general verdict rule ‘‘operates . . . to insulate a verdict that may have been reached under a cloud of error, but which also could have been reached by an untainted route.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Klein v. Quinnipiac Univer- sity, 193 Conn. App. 469 , 487, 219 A.3d 911 (2019), appeal dismissed, Conn. , A.3d (2020).

2019Management Co. , 91 Conn. App. 751 , 754, 881 A.2d 1072 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 909 , 894 A.2d 990 (2006). "[A]pplication of the rule [is limited] to the following scenarios: (1) denial of separate counts of a complaint ; (2) denial of separate defenses pleaded as such; (3) denial of separate legal theories of recovery or defense pleaded in one count or defense, as the case may be; (4) denial of a complaint and pleading of a special defense; and (5) denial of a specific defense, raised under a general denial, that had been asserted as the case was tried but that should have been specia

2019Management Co. , 91 Conn. App. 751 , 754, 881 A.2d 1072 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 909 , 894 A.2d 990 (2006). "[A]pplication of the rule [is limited] to the following scenarios: (1) denial of separate counts of a complaint ; (2) denial of separate defenses pleaded as such; (3) denial of separate legal theories of recovery or defense pleaded in one count or defense, as the case may be; (4) denial of a complaint and pleading of a special defense; and (5) denial of a specific defense, raised under a general denial, that had been asserted as the case was tried but that should have been specia

2019Management Co. , 91 Conn. App. 751 , 754, 881 A.2d 1072 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 909 , 894 A.2d 990 (2006). "[A]pplication of the rule [is limited] to the following scenarios: (1) denial of separate counts of a complaint ; (2) denial of separate defenses pleaded as such; (3) denial of separate legal theories of recovery or defense pleaded in one count or defense, as the case may be; (4) denial of a complaint and pleading of a special defense; and (5) denial of a specific defense, raised under a general denial, that had been asserted as the case was tried but that should have been specia

2019Management Co. , 91 Conn. App. 751 , 754, 881 A.2d 1072 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 909 , 894 A.2d 990 (2006). "[A]pplication of the rule [is limited] to the following scenarios: (1) denial of separate counts of a complaint ; (2) denial of separate defenses pleaded as such; (3) denial of separate legal theories of recovery or defense pleaded in one count or defense, as the case may be; (4) denial of a complaint and pleading of a special defense; and (5) denial of a specific defense, raised under a general denial, that had been asserted as the case was tried but that should have been specia

2019Management Co. , 91 Conn. App. 751 , 754, 881 A.2d 1072 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 909 , 894 A.2d 990 (2006). "[A]pplication of the rule [is limited] to the following scenarios: (1) denial of separate counts of a complaint ; (2) denial of separate defenses pleaded as such; (3) denial of separate legal theories of recovery or defense pleaded in one count or defense, as the case may be; (4) denial of a complaint and pleading of a special defense; and (5) denial of a specific defense, raised under a general denial, that had been asserted as the case was tried but that should have been specia

2019Management Co. , 91 Conn. App. 751 , 754, 881 A.2d 1072 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 909 , 894 A.2d 990 (2006). "[A]pplication of the rule [is limited] to the following scenarios: (1) denial of separate counts of a complaint ; (2) denial of separate defenses pleaded as such; (3) denial of separate legal theories of recovery or defense pleaded in one count or defense, as the case may be; (4) denial of a complaint and pleading of a special defense; and (5) denial of a specific defense, raised under a general denial, that had been asserted as the case was tried but that should have been specia

2010Put another way, “in a case in which the general verdict rule operates, if any ground for the verdict is proper, the verdict must stand; only if every ground is improper does the verdict fall.” Turturino v. Hurley, 98 Conn. App. 259, 262 , 907 A.2d 1266 (2006); see also Monterose v. Cross, 60 Conn. App. 655, 661 , 760 A.2d 1013 (2000) (“[t]he general verdict rule operates to prevent an appellate court from disturbing a verdict that may have been reached under a cloud of error, but is nonetheless valid *289 because the jury may have taken an untainted route in reaching its verdict” [internal qu

2010Put another way, “in a case in which the general verdict rule operates, if any ground for the verdict is proper, the verdict must stand; only if every ground is improper does the verdict fall.” Turturino v. Hurley, 98 Conn. App. 259, 262 , 907 A.2d 1266 (2006); see also Monterose v. Cross, 60 Conn. App. 655, 661 , 760 A.2d 1013 (2000) (“[t]he general verdict rule operates to prevent an appellate court from disturbing a verdict that may have been reached under a cloud of error, but is nonetheless valid *289 because the jury may have taken an untainted route in reaching its verdict” [internal qu

2001“The amount of a damage award is a matter peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Grayson v. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & Kuriansky, 231 Conn. 168, 183-84 , 646 A.2d 195 (1994).

2001“The amount of a damage award is a matter peculiarly within the province of the trier of fact . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Grayson v. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & Kuriansky, 231 Conn. 168, 183-84 , 646 A.2d 195 (1994).

2000Because [this] action falls under the fourth situation, the general verdict rule would have been applicable to the plaintiffs’ appeal from that judgment to prevent an appellate court from disturbing a verdict that may have been reached under a cloud of error, but is nonetheless valid because the juiy may have taken an untainted route in reaching its verdict.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dowling v. Finley Associates, Inc., 248 Conn. 364, 371-72 , 727 A.2d 1245 (1999).

2000Because [this] action falls under the fourth situation, the general verdict rule would have been applicable to the plaintiffs’ appeal from that judgment to prevent an appellate court from disturbing a verdict that may have been reached under a cloud of error, but is nonetheless valid because the juiy may have taken an untainted route in reaching its verdict.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dowling v. Finley Associates, Inc., 248 Conn. 364, 371-72 , 727 A.2d 1245 (1999).

1996Co., 29 Conn. App. 533, 558 , 616 A.2d 819 (1992).

1992“The implication of a general verdict, where there are two causes of action, ‘imports that the jury has found all the issues for the plaintiff, hence if one of these causes of action is supported by credible testimony the verdict must stand, although the other cause of action was not supported ... by law, since it cannot be known that the verdict was based upon the invalid cause of action.’ ” Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702, 708 , 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , 599 A.2d 384 (1991), quoting Wladyka v. Waterbury, 98 Conn. 305, 313 , 119 A. 149 (1922).

1992“The implication of a general verdict, where there are two causes of action, ‘imports that the jury has found all the issues for the plaintiff, hence if one of these causes of action is supported by credible testimony the verdict must stand, although the other cause of action was not supported ... by law, since it cannot be known that the verdict was based upon the invalid cause of action.’ ” Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702, 708 , 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , 599 A.2d 384 (1991), quoting Wladyka v. Waterbury, 98 Conn. 305, 313 , 119 A. 149 (1922).

1992“The implication of a general verdict, where there are two causes of action, ‘imports that the jury has found all the issues for the plaintiff, hence if one of these causes of action is supported by credible testimony the verdict must stand, although the other cause of action was not supported ... by law, since it cannot be known that the verdict was based upon the invalid cause of action.’ ” Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702, 708 , 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , 599 A.2d 384 (1991), quoting Wladyka v. Waterbury, 98 Conn. 305, 313 , 119 A. 149 (1922).

1992“The implication of a general verdict, where there are two causes of action, ‘imports that the jury has found all the issues for the plaintiff, hence if one of these causes of action is supported by credible testimony the verdict must stand, although the other cause of action was not supported ... by law, since it cannot be known that the verdict was based upon the invalid cause of action.’ ” Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702, 708 , 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , 599 A.2d 384 (1991), quoting Wladyka v. Waterbury, 98 Conn. 305, 313 , 119 A. 149 (1922).

1992“The implication of a general verdict, where there are two causes of action, ‘imports that the jury has found all the issues for the plaintiff, hence if one of these causes of action is supported by credible testimony the verdict must stand, although the other cause of action was not supported ... by law, since it cannot be known that the verdict was based upon the invalid cause of action.’ ” Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702, 708 , 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , 599 A.2d 384 (1991), quoting Wladyka v. Waterbury, 98 Conn. 305, 313 , 119 A. 149 (1922).

1992“The implication of a general verdict, where there are two causes of action, ‘imports that the jury has found all the issues for the plaintiff, hence if one of these causes of action is supported by credible testimony the verdict must stand, although the other cause of action was not supported ... by law, since it cannot be known that the verdict was based upon the invalid cause of action.’ ” Hammer v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 25 Conn. App. 702, 708 , 596 A.2d 1318 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 933 , 599 A.2d 384 (1991), quoting Wladyka v. Waterbury, 98 Conn. 305, 313 , 119 A. 149 (1922).

1919In Luther v. Brown, 66 Mo. App. 227, 230 , suit was *665 brought to recover the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in an action to remove a cloud from his title.