merit claim in Connecticut

2000F. Wooding Co. , 173 Conn. 426 , 428 , 378 A.2d 538 (1977). "[T]he trial court . . . must determine, in light of its assessment of the legal issues and the credibility of the witnesses, whether a plaintiff has sustained the burden of showing probable cause to sustain the validity of its claim." Nash v. Weed Duryea Co. , 236 Conn. 746 , 749 , 674 A.2d 849 (1996).

2000F. Wooding Co. , 173 Conn. 426 , 428 , 378 A.2d 538 (1977). "[T]he trial court . . . must determine, in light of its assessment of the legal issues and the credibility of the witnesses, whether a plaintiff has sustained the burden of showing probable cause to sustain the validity of its claim." Nash v. Weed Duryea Co. , 236 Conn. 746 , 749 , 674 A.2d 849 (1996).

2000F. Wooding Co. , 173 Conn. 426 , 428 , 378 A.2d 538 (1977). "[T]he trial court . . . must determine, in light of its assessment of the legal issues and the credibility of the witnesses, whether a plaintiff has sustained the burden of showing probable cause to sustain the validity of its claim." Nash v. Weed Duryea Co. , 236 Conn. 746 , 749 , 674 A.2d 849 (1996).

2000F. Wooding Co. , 173 Conn. 426 , 428 , 378 A.2d 538 (1977). "[T]he trial court . . . must determine, in light of its assessment of the legal issues and the credibility of the witnesses, whether a plaintiff has sustained the burden of showing probable cause to sustain the validity of its claim." Nash v. Weed Duryea Co. , 236 Conn. 746 , 749 , 674 A.2d 849 (1996).

2000Because [t]he adjudication made by the court on the application for a prejudgment remedy is not part of the proceedings ultimately to decide the validity and merits of the plaintiffs cause of action . . . the plaintiff need not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the final merit of his claim, but only its probable validity." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) "In undertaking the probable cause analysis that our present [prejudgment remedy] statute requires, a court is required to consider not only the validity of the plaintiffs claim but also the amount that is bei

2000Because [t]he adjudication made by the court on the application for a prejudgment remedy is not part of the proceedings ultimately to decide the validity and merits of the plaintiffs cause of action . . . the plaintiff need not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the final merit of his claim, but only its probable validity." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) "In undertaking the probable cause analysis that our present [prejudgment remedy] statute requires, a court is required to consider not only the validity of the plaintiffs claim but also the amount that is bei

1987As we stated in Perretta v. Civil Service Commission, 185 Conn. 88, 100 , 440 A.2d 823 (1981), § 392 of the New Britain charter is in “harmony with the statutory purpose of the merit system, ‘to provide means for selecting and promoting each public official and employee upon the sole basis of his proven ability to perform the duties of his office or employment more efficiently than any other candidate therefore . . . .’ General Statutes § 7-409.” Cf. New Britain Charter § 301 (members of civil service commission shall be in sympathy with the merit principle as applied to the civil service).

1987As we stated in Perretta v. Civil Service Commission, 185 Conn. 88, 100 , 440 A.2d 823 (1981), § 392 of the New Britain charter is in “harmony with the statutory purpose of the merit system, ‘to provide means for selecting and promoting each public official and employee upon the sole basis of his proven ability to perform the duties of his office or employment more efficiently than any other candidate therefore . . . .’ General Statutes § 7-409.” Cf. New Britain Charter § 301 (members of civil service commission shall be in sympathy with the merit principle as applied to the civil service).

1977Hansen Elevator, Inc. v. Stoll, 167 Conn. 623, 628-29 , 356 A.2d 893 ; the plaintiff need not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the final merit of his claim, but only its probable validity.

1977Hansen Elevator, Inc. v. Stoll, 167 Conn. 623, 628-29 , 356 A.2d 893 ; the plaintiff need not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the final merit of his claim, but only its probable validity.

1972The sole issue on the appeal is the merit of the claim of the defendant that the court erred in denying his petition for habeas corpus which was predicated on the sole ground that the court erred “in orally changing the Defendant’s maximum sentence from two years to four years.” What we said in Reed v. Reincke, 158 Conn. 45, 47 , 255 A.2d 850 , is equally applicable in this instance: “Because there is such a complete lack of merit to the plaintiff’s claim, this case should not even have been certified to this court under § 52-470.” There is no error.

1972The sole issue on the appeal is the merit of the claim of the defendant that the court erred in denying his petition for habeas corpus which was predicated on the sole ground that the court erred “in orally changing the Defendant’s maximum sentence from two years to four years.” What we said in Reed v. Reincke, 158 Conn. 45, 47 , 255 A.2d 850 , is equally applicable in this instance: “Because there is such a complete lack of merit to the plaintiff’s claim, this case should not even have been certified to this court under § 52-470.” There is no error.

1971Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128 , 38 S. Ct. 41 , 62 L.

1971Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128 , 38 S. Ct. 41 , 62 L.