palpable error in Connecticut

2004A court may “set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bovat v. Waterbury, 258 Conn. 574, 583 , 783 A.2d 1001 (2001), quoting Munson v. Atwood, 108 Conn. 285, 288 , 142 A. 737 (1928); see also Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 276-77 , 828 A.2d 64 (2003); Yeske v. Avon Old Farms School, Inc., 1 Conn. App. 195, 206 , 4

2004A court may “set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bovat v. Waterbury, 258 Conn. 574, 583 , 783 A.2d 1001 (2001), quoting Munson v. Atwood, 108 Conn. 285, 288 , 142 A. 737 (1928); see also Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 276-77 , 828 A.2d 64 (2003); Yeske v. Avon Old Farms School, Inc., 1 Conn. App. 195, 206 , 4

2017Additionally, "[a trial court may] set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bovat v. City of Waterbury , 258 Conn. 574 , 583, 783 A.2d 1001 (2001).

2017Additionally, "[a trial court may] set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bovat v. City of Waterbury , 258 Conn. 574 , 583, 783 A.2d 1001 (2001).

2002Similarly, "A trial court has the `inherent power to set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its . . . rulings on evidence. . . . a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict.' Munson v. Atwood , 108 Conn. 285 , 288 , 142 A. 737 (1928). `It is proper for a trial court, using due caution, and in the exercise of its discretion, to set aside a verdict' when satisfied that . . . its rulings on evidence were erroneous and that those erroneous . . . rulings were consequential enough to have had a subs

2002Similarly, "A trial court has the `inherent power to set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its . . . rulings on evidence. . . . a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict.' Munson v. Atwood , 108 Conn. 285 , 288 , 142 A. 737 (1928). `It is proper for a trial court, using due caution, and in the exercise of its discretion, to set aside a verdict' when satisfied that . . . its rulings on evidence were erroneous and that those erroneous . . . rulings were consequential enough to have had a subs

2002Similarly, "A trial court has the `inherent power to set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its . . . rulings on evidence. . . . a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict.' Munson v. Atwood , 108 Conn. 285 , 288 , 142 A. 737 (1928). `It is proper for a trial court, using due caution, and in the exercise of its discretion, to set aside a verdict' when satisfied that . . . its rulings on evidence were erroneous and that those erroneous . . . rulings were consequential enough to have had a subs

2002Similarly, "A trial court has the `inherent power to set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its . . . rulings on evidence. . . . a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict.' Munson v. Atwood , 108 Conn. 285 , 288 , 142 A. 737 (1928). `It is proper for a trial court, using due caution, and in the exercise of its discretion, to set aside a verdict' when satisfied that . . . its rulings on evidence were erroneous and that those erroneous . . . rulings were consequential enough to have had a subs

2004A court may “set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bovat v. Waterbury, 258 Conn. 574, 583 , 783 A.2d 1001 (2001), quoting Munson v. Atwood, 108 Conn. 285, 288 , 142 A. 737 (1928); see also Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 276-77 , 828 A.2d 64 (2003); Yeske v. Avon Old Farms School, Inc., 1 Conn. App. 195, 206 , 4

2004A court may “set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bovat v. Waterbury, 258 Conn. 574, 583 , 783 A.2d 1001 (2001), quoting Munson v. Atwood, 108 Conn. 285, 288 , 142 A. 737 (1928); see also Schoonmaker v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 265 Conn. 210, 276-77 , 828 A.2d 64 (2003); Yeske v. Avon Old Farms School, Inc., 1 Conn. App. 195, 206 , 4

2003The hornbook Connecticut law governing the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, as recently set forth by this court in B & B Bail Bonds Agency of Connecticut, Inc. v. Bailey, 256 Conn. 209, 212-13 , 770 A.2d 960 (2001), provides an appropriate background for resolving the defendants’ claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to set aside the verdict.

2003The hornbook Connecticut law governing the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, as recently set forth by this court in B & B Bail Bonds Agency of Connecticut, Inc. v. Bailey, 256 Conn. 209, 212-13 , 770 A.2d 960 (2001), provides an appropriate background for resolving the defendants’ claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to set aside the verdict.

2002"A trial court [also] has the inherent power to set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hamernick v. Bach , 64 Conn. App. 160 , 163 , 779 A.2d 806 (2001).

2002"A trial court [also] has the inherent power to set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hamernick v. Bach , 64 Conn. App. 160 , 163 , 779 A.2d 806 (2001).

2001Development Corp., 243 Conn. 667, 673 , 706 A.2d 975 (1998). “[A trial court may] set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict.” Munson v. Atwood, 108 Conn. 285, 288 , 142 A. 737 (1928).

2001Development Corp., 243 Conn. 667, 673 , 706 A.2d 975 (1998). “[A trial court may] set aside a verdict where it finds it has made, in its instructions, rulings on evidence, or otherwise in the course of the trial, a palpable error which was harmful to the proper disposition of the case and probably brought about a different result in the verdict.” Munson v. Atwood, 108 Conn. 285, 288 , 142 A. 737 (1928).

1956Merriman & Sons, Inc., 115 Conn. 678, 680 , 163 A. 411 . *274 There can be no question that the court’s charge was erroneous in its instruction to the effect that if the jury found any ambiguity in the policy in suit, it was for them to resolve that ambiguity and interpret the policy.

1956Merriman & Sons, Inc., 115 Conn. 678, 680 , 163 A. 411 . *274 There can be no question that the court’s charge was erroneous in its instruction to the effect that if the jury found any ambiguity in the policy in suit, it was for them to resolve that ambiguity and interpret the policy.