plaintiff bases claim in Connecticut

2022The foregoing conclusion leads us to the plaintiff’s next claim on appeal, that the board erroneously con- cluded that the claimant was not discharged for wilful misconduct. ‘‘Whether the circumstances of an employ- ee’s termination constitute wilful misconduct on the employee’s part is a mixed question of law and fact.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tosado v. Adminis- trator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 130 Conn. App. 266, 276 , 22 A.3d 675 (2011).

2022The foregoing conclusion leads us to the plaintiff’s next claim on appeal, that the board erroneously con- cluded that the claimant was not discharged for wilful misconduct. ‘‘Whether the circumstances of an employ- ee’s termination constitute wilful misconduct on the employee’s part is a mixed question of law and fact.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tosado v. Adminis- trator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 130 Conn. App. 266, 276 , 22 A.3d 675 (2011).

2008See, e.g., Stohlts v. Gilkinson, 87 Conn. App. 634, 650 , 867 A.2d 860 (court’s improper reliance on facts irrelevant to claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress harmless when, even absent irrelevant facts, sufficient evidence existed to support court’s finding), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 930 , 873 A.2d 1000 (2005); Ezikovich v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 57 Conn. App. 767, 776 , 750 A.2d 494 (“commission’s discussion of the collective bargaining agreement, even if it was erroneous, was harmless because there was substantial evidence in the record to support the commi

2008See, e.g., Stohlts v. Gilkinson, 87 Conn. App. 634, 650 , 867 A.2d 860 (court’s improper reliance on facts irrelevant to claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress harmless when, even absent irrelevant facts, sufficient evidence existed to support court’s finding), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 930 , 873 A.2d 1000 (2005); Ezikovich v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 57 Conn. App. 767, 776 , 750 A.2d 494 (“commission’s discussion of the collective bargaining agreement, even if it was erroneous, was harmless because there was substantial evidence in the record to support the commi

2002Partnership v. Beacon Industries, Inc., 239 Conn. 284, 301 , 685 A.2d 305 (1996), in which our Supreme Court stated that a “finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence . . . to support it . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) We agree with the plaintiff that a finding of fact, without any evidence to support it, is clearly erroneous.

2002Partnership v. Beacon Industries, Inc., 239 Conn. 284, 301 , 685 A.2d 305 (1996), in which our Supreme Court stated that a “finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence . . . to support it . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) We agree with the plaintiff that a finding of fact, without any evidence to support it, is clearly erroneous.

2000"In order to establish conversion, the complaint must allege an unauthorized assumption and exercise of ownership over the personal property of another to the detriment of the owner. (citations omitted)." Uniguard Insurance Co. v. Tremont , 37 Conn. Sup. 596 , 599 , 430 A.2d 30 (1981).

2000"In order to establish conversion, the complaint must allege an unauthorized assumption and exercise of ownership over the personal property of another to the detriment of the owner. (citations omitted)." Uniguard Insurance Co. v. Tremont , 37 Conn. Sup. 596 , 599 , 430 A.2d 30 (1981).

1999"To recover a commission, a broker must ordinarily show (1) that he has produced a customer ready, willing and able to buy on terms acceptable to the seller, or (2) that he has brought the buyer and seller to an enforceable agreement." Howland v. Schweir , 7 Conn. App. 709 , 713 , 510 A.2d 215 (1986).

1999"To recover a commission, a broker must ordinarily show (1) that he has produced a customer ready, willing and able to buy on terms acceptable to the seller, or (2) that he has brought the buyer and seller to an enforceable agreement." Howland v. Schweir , 7 Conn. App. 709 , 713 , 510 A.2d 215 (1986).

1994We have previously held, however, that § 46b-8 does not impose a mandate on the trial court to hear the two motions together; Bieluch v. Bieluch, 199 Conn. 550, 553 , 509 A.2d 8 (1986); see also Mallory v. Mallory, 207 Conn. 48, 57 , 539 A.2d 995 (1988); Leslie v. Leslie, 174 Conn. 399, 402 , 389 A.2d 747 (1978); and we see no reason to reconsider that decision.

1994We have previously held, however, that § 46b-8 does not impose a mandate on the trial court to hear the two motions together; Bieluch v. Bieluch, 199 Conn. 550, 553 , 509 A.2d 8 (1986); see also Mallory v. Mallory, 207 Conn. 48, 57 , 539 A.2d 995 (1988); Leslie v. Leslie, 174 Conn. 399, 402 , 389 A.2d 747 (1978); and we see no reason to reconsider that decision.

1994We have previously held, however, that § 46b-8 does not impose a mandate on the trial court to hear the two motions together; Bieluch v. Bieluch, 199 Conn. 550, 553 , 509 A.2d 8 (1986); see also Mallory v. Mallory, 207 Conn. 48, 57 , 539 A.2d 995 (1988); Leslie v. Leslie, 174 Conn. 399, 402 , 389 A.2d 747 (1978); and we see no reason to reconsider that decision.

1994We have previously held, however, that § 46b-8 does not impose a mandate on the trial court to hear the two motions together; Bieluch v. Bieluch, 199 Conn. 550, 553 , 509 A.2d 8 (1986); see also Mallory v. Mallory, 207 Conn. 48, 57 , 539 A.2d 995 (1988); Leslie v. Leslie, 174 Conn. 399, 402 , 389 A.2d 747 (1978); and we see no reason to reconsider that decision.

1989The plaintiff bases this claim on Park Construction Co. v. Knapp, 150 Conn. 588, 591-92 , 192 A.2d 635 (1963), where the court discussed the difference between a motion to erase and a plea in abatement under our prior practice, and held that a motion to erase an appeal reached only defects appearing on the face of the record and had to be decided on the record alone.

1989The plaintiff bases this claim on Park Construction Co. v. Knapp, 150 Conn. 588, 591-92 , 192 A.2d 635 (1963), where the court discussed the difference between a motion to erase and a plea in abatement under our prior practice, and held that a motion to erase an appeal reached only defects appearing on the face of the record and had to be decided on the record alone.

1984Ramada Development Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 626 F.2d 517 , 525 n.11 (6th Cir. 1980).

1966The plaintiff bases its claim principally on the case of Middletown Ferry Co. v. Middletown, 40 Conn. 65 (1873).

1965The plaintiff bases its claim of valid jurisdiction in compliance with our state statute on the claim of adequate adherence to the essential requisites laid down in the leading case on in personam service decided by the United States Supreme Court — International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

1957The plaintiff bases this claim on language in Thomas F. Rogers, Inc. v. Hochberg, 143 Conn. 22, 24 , 118 A.2d 910 .

1957The plaintiff bases this claim on language in Thomas F. Rogers, Inc. v. Hochberg, 143 Conn. 22, 24 , 118 A.2d 910 .