plenary review standard in Connecticut

2019The harmfulness of an improper ruling is material irrespective of whether the ruling is subject to review under an abuse of discre- tion standard or a plenary review standard. . . . [If] the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017).

2018When the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers , 178 Conn. App. 102 , 105-106, 174 A.3d 197 (2017). ''We do not reach the merits of [a] claim [where] the defendant has not briefed how he was harmed by the allegedly improper evidentiary ruling.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Toro , 172 Conn. App. 810 , 817, 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017) ; see also State v. Myers , supra, 178 Conn. App. at 108 , 174 A.3d 197 (''ther

2019The harmfulness of an improper ruling is material irrespective of whether the ruling is subject to review under an abuse of discre- tion standard or a plenary review standard. . . . [If] the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017).

2018When the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers , 178 Conn. App. 102 , 105-106, 174 A.3d 197 (2017). ''We do not reach the merits of [a] claim [where] the defendant has not briefed how he was harmed by the allegedly improper evidentiary ruling.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Toro , 172 Conn. App. 810 , 817, 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017) ; see also State v. Myers , supra, 178 Conn. App. at 108 , 174 A.3d 197 (''ther

2019The harmfulness of an improper ruling is material irrespective of whether the ruling is subject to review under an abuse of discre- tion standard or a plenary review standard. . . . [If] the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017).

2019The harmfulness of an improper ruling is material irrespective of whether the ruling is subject to review under an abuse of discre- tion standard or a plenary review standard. . . . [If] the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810, 816 , 162 A.3d 63 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 905 , 170 A.3d 2 (2017).

2026Applying these general principles to the present case, we apply an abuse of discretion standard to the court’s ultimate determination to deny the plaintiff’s motion to open; id.; a clearly erroneous standard of review to the trial court’s factual findings; Hebrand v. Hebrand, 216 Conn. App. 210, 216 , 284 A.3d 702 (2022) (in reviewing court’s denial of motion to open based on fraud, court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous); and a plenary review standard to the plaintiff’s claim that the court improperly concluded that he failed to establish probable cau

2017When the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Baker , 168 Conn.App. 19 , 36, 145 A.3d 955 , cert. denied, 323 Conn. 932 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016). "[W]hether [an improper ruling] is harmless in a particular case depends upon a number of factors, such as the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points,

2017When the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Baker , 168 Conn.App. 19 , 36, 145 A.3d 955 , cert. denied, 323 Conn. 932 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016). "[W]hether [an improper ruling] is harmless in a particular case depends upon a number of factors, such as the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points,

2017When the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Baker , 168 Conn.App. 19 , 36, 145 A.3d 955 , cert. denied, 323 Conn. 932 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016). "[W]hether [an improper ruling] is harmless in a particular case depends upon a number of factors, such as the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points,

2017When the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Baker , 168 Conn.App. 19 , 36, 145 A.3d 955 , cert. denied, 323 Conn. 932 , 150 A.3d 232 (2016). "[W]hether [an improper ruling] is harmless in a particular case depends upon a number of factors, such as the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points,

2016When the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re James O., 160 Conn.App. 506 , 527, 127 A.3d 375 (2015), aff'd, 322 Conn. 636 , 142 A.3d 1147 (2016).

2016When the ruling at issue is not of constitutional dimensions, the party challenging the ruling bears the burden of proving harm." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re James O., 160 Conn.App. 506 , 527, 127 A.3d 375 (2015), aff'd, 322 Conn. 636 , 142 A.3d 1147 (2016).

2014See id., 109–10 (citing various types of legal claims to which court has applied harmless error review); Santopietro v. New Haven, 239 Conn. 207, 216 , 682 A.2d 106 (1996) (‘‘[w]here claims of trial court impropriety have been properly preserved and, therefore, are entitled to ple- nary review, we determine whether the ruling of the trial court is legally correct and, if it is not, whether the error was likely to have affected the verdict’’); see, e.g., PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279, 291, 295 , 838 A.2d 135 (2004) (con- cluding, after conducting plenary revi

2014See id., 109–10 (citing various types of legal claims to which court has applied harmless error review); Santopietro v. New Haven, 239 Conn. 207, 216 , 682 A.2d 106 (1996) (‘‘[w]here claims of trial court impropriety have been properly preserved and, therefore, are entitled to ple- nary review, we determine whether the ruling of the trial court is legally correct and, if it is not, whether the error was likely to have affected the verdict’’); see, e.g., PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279, 291, 295 , 838 A.2d 135 (2004) (con- cluding, after conducting plenary revi

2014See id., 109–10 (citing various types of legal claims to which court has applied harmless error review); Santopietro v. New Haven, 239 Conn. 207, 216 , 682 A.2d 106 (1996) (‘‘[w]here claims of trial court impropriety have been properly preserved and, therefore, are entitled to ple- nary review, we determine whether the ruling of the trial court is legally correct and, if it is not, whether the error was likely to have affected the verdict’’); see, e.g., PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279, 291, 295 , 838 A.2d 135 (2004) (con- cluding, after conducting plenary revi

2014See id., 109–10 (citing various types of legal claims to which court has applied harmless error review); Santopietro v. New Haven, 239 Conn. 207, 216 , 682 A.2d 106 (1996) (‘‘[w]here claims of trial court impropriety have been properly preserved and, therefore, are entitled to ple- nary review, we determine whether the ruling of the trial court is legally correct and, if it is not, whether the error was likely to have affected the verdict’’); see, e.g., PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279, 291, 295 , 838 A.2d 135 (2004) (con- cluding, after conducting plenary revi

1992Also, "because this case is an appeal from an adverse ruling of the commissioner of revenue services, the plaintiff is entitled to a plenary review of its challenge of its tax assessment, and is not limited to an administrative appeal under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act." Texaco Refining Marketing Co. v. Commissioner, 202 Conn. 583 , 588 (1987).

1992CT Page 1916 In Columbia Pictures Industries v. Tax Commissioner, 176 Conn. 604 (1979) the Supreme Court established the rule that when the question under the sale or use tax is whether a transaction involved tangible personal property or intangible property rights the court would look to the real object of the transaction.

1987General Statutes § 4-186 12 ; Practice Book § 257 (d) (3) 13 ; see Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Dubno, 202 Conn. 412, 421 , 521 A.2d 569 (1987); Xerox Corporation v. Board of Tax Review, 175 Conn. 301, 303 , 397 A.2d 1367 (1978).

1987General Statutes § 4-186 12 ; Practice Book § 257 (d) (3) 13 ; see Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Dubno, 202 Conn. 412, 421 , 521 A.2d 569 (1987); Xerox Corporation v. Board of Tax Review, 175 Conn. 301, 303 , 397 A.2d 1367 (1978).