absence of clear error in Connecticut

2015In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . . [On appeal], therefore, we need only decide whether the trial court’s conclusions were reasonable under the clear error standard.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quota- tion marks omitted.) TES Franchising, LLC v. Feld- man, 286 Conn. 132 , 136–38, 943 A.2d 406 (2008); see also Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Calco Con- struction & Development C

2015In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . . [On appeal], therefore, we need only decide whether the trial court’s conclusions were reasonable under the clear error standard.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quota- tion marks omitted.) TES Franchising, LLC v. Feld- man, 286 Conn. 132 , 136–38, 943 A.2d 406 (2008); see also Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Calco Con- struction & Development C

2023F. Wooding Co., 173 Conn. 426, 429 , 378 A.2d 538 (1977) (‘‘[A]t the hear- ing on an application for a prejudgment remedy . . . [t]he hearing . . . is not intended to be a full-scale trial on the merits. . . .

1984“In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses.” Id.

1989Price Saver, Inc. v. Maynard, 5 Conn. App. 90, 91 , 496 A.2d 991 (1985); Babiarz v. Hartford Special, Inc., 2 Conn. App. 388, 393-94 , 480 A.2d 561 (1984). “ ‘ “In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses.” ’ Three S. Development Co. v. Santore, supra, quoting Augeri v. C.

1989Price Saver, Inc. v. Maynard, 5 Conn. App. 90, 91 , 496 A.2d 991 (1985); Babiarz v. Hartford Special, Inc., 2 Conn. App. 388, 393-94 , 480 A.2d 561 (1984). “ ‘ “In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses.” ’ Three S. Development Co. v. Santore, supra, quoting Augeri v. C.

2008In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . . [On appeal], therefore, we need only decide whether the trial court’s conclusions were reasonable under the clear error standard.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132, 136-38 , 943 A.2d 406 (2008); Benton v. Simpson, 78 Conn. App. 746, 750-52 , 829 A.2d 68 (2003); see also Doe v. R

2008In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . . [On appeal], therefore, we need only decide whether the trial court’s conclusions were reasonable under the clear error standard.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132, 136-38 , 943 A.2d 406 (2008); Benton v. Simpson, 78 Conn. App. 746, 750-52 , 829 A.2d 68 (2003); see also Doe v. R

2013In the absence of clear error, [a reviewing] court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . . [On appeal], therefore, we need only decide whether the trial court’s conclusions were reasonable under the clear error standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vincent Metro, LLC v. Ginsberg, 139 Conn. App. 632, 637-38 , 57 A.3d 781 (2012), cert. denied, 308 Conn. 907 , 61 A.3d 1097 (2013). “[T]he clear error standard in this cont

2013In the absence of clear error, [a reviewing] court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . . [On appeal], therefore, we need only decide whether the trial court’s conclusions were reasonable under the clear error standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vincent Metro, LLC v. Ginsberg, 139 Conn. App. 632, 637-38 , 57 A.3d 781 (2012), cert. denied, 308 Conn. 907 , 61 A.3d 1097 (2013). “[T]he clear error standard in this cont

1994There is, of course, no presumption of error.” (Citations omitted.) Solomon v. Aberman, 196 Conn. 359, 376 , 493 A.2d 193 (1985). “ ‘In the absence of clear error [the Appellate Court] should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility .. . of the witnesses.’ ” Three S. Development Co. v. Santore, 193 Conn. 174, 176 , 474 A.2d 795 (1984); New England Land Co. v. DeMarkey, 213 Conn. 612, 621 , 569 A.2d 1098 (1990).

1994There is, of course, no presumption of error.” (Citations omitted.) Solomon v. Aberman, 196 Conn. 359, 376 , 493 A.2d 193 (1985). “ ‘In the absence of clear error [the Appellate Court] should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility .. . of the witnesses.’ ” Three S. Development Co. v. Santore, 193 Conn. 174, 176 , 474 A.2d 795 (1984); New England Land Co. v. DeMarkey, 213 Conn. 612, 621 , 569 A.2d 1098 (1990).

1993For a trial court to grant the prejudgment remedy requested, the plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of “probable cause to sustain the validity of his claim.” General Statutes § 52-278d (a). 3 It is important to remember that “[t]he plaintiff does not have to establish that he will prevail, only that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of the claim. . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Anderson, 203 Conn. 475, 479 , 525 A.2d 935 (1987).

1993For a trial court to grant the prejudgment remedy requested, the plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of “probable cause to sustain the validity of his claim.” General Statutes § 52-278d (a). 3 It is important to remember that “[t]he plaintiff does not have to establish that he will prevail, only that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of the claim. . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dow & Condon, Inc. v. Anderson, 203 Conn. 475, 479 , 525 A.2d 935 (1987).

1993In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sweet v. Sumnerbrook Mill Development Corporation, 21 Conn. App. 191, 193 , 572 A.2d 385 (1990).

1993In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sweet v. Sumnerbrook Mill Development Corporation, 21 Conn. App. 191, 193 , 572 A.2d 385 (1990).

2018In the absence of clear error, [a reviewing] court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Chung Family Realty Partnership, LLC , 137 Conn.App. 359 , 369-70, 48 A.3d 705 , cert. denied, 307 Conn. 916 , 54 A.3d 180 (2012).

2018In the absence of clear error, [a reviewing] court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Chung Family Realty Partnership, LLC , 137 Conn.App. 359 , 369-70, 48 A.3d 705 , cert. denied, 307 Conn. 916 , 54 A.3d 180 (2012).

2015Under the clear error standard, we review the record with ‘‘a heightened standard of deference that exceeds the level of deference afforded under the abuse of discretion standard’’ and will over- rule the granting of a prejudgment remedy ‘‘only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, supra, 138 n.6; Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Caridi, 144 Conn. App. 793, 797 , 73 A.3d 863 (2013).

2015Under the clear error standard, we review the record with ‘‘a heightened standard of deference that exceeds the level of deference afforded under the abuse of discretion standard’’ and will over- rule the granting of a prejudgment remedy ‘‘only if we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, supra, 138 n.6; Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Caridi, 144 Conn. App. 793, 797 , 73 A.3d 863 (2013).

2012In the absence of clear error, [a reviewing] court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . . [On appeal], therefore, we need only decide whether the trial court’s conclusions were reasonable under the clear error standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Crotty v. Tuccio Development, Inc., 119 Conn. App. 775, 778-80 , 990 A.2d 888 (2010).

2012In the absence of clear error, [a reviewing] court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses. . . . [On appeal], therefore, we need only decide whether the trial court’s conclusions were reasonable under the clear error standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Crotty v. Tuccio Development, Inc., 119 Conn. App. 775, 778-80 , 990 A.2d 888 (2010).

2007A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kinsale, LLC v. Tombari, 95 Conn. App. 472, 475 , 897 A.2d 646 (2006).

2007A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kinsale, LLC v. Tombari, 95 Conn. App. 472, 475 , 897 A.2d 646 (2006).

2006A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morris v. Cee Dee, LLC, 90 Conn. App. 403, 411 , 877 A.2d 899 , cert. granted on other grounds, 275 Conn. 929 , 883 A.2d 1245 (2005) (appeal withdrawn March 13, 2006).

2006A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morris v. Cee Dee, LLC, 90 Conn. App. 403, 411 , 877 A.2d 899 , cert. granted on other grounds, 275 Conn. 929 , 883 A.2d 1245 (2005) (appeal withdrawn March 13, 2006).

2006A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morris v. Cee Dee, LLC, 90 Conn. App. 403, 411 , 877 A.2d 899 , cert. granted on other grounds, 275 Conn. 929 , 883 A.2d 1245 (2005) (appeal withdrawn March 13, 2006).

2006A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morris v. Cee Dee, LLC, 90 Conn.App. 403, 411 , 877 A.2d 899 , cert. granted on other grounds, 275 Conn. 929 , 883 A.2d 1245 (2005).

2006A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it ... or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morris v. Cee Dee, LLC, 90 Conn. App. 403, 411 , 877 A.2d 899 , cert. granted on other grounds, 275 Conn. 929 , 883 A.2d 1245 (2005) (appeal withdrawn March 13, 2006).

2006A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morris v. Cee Dee, LLC, 90 Conn.App. 403, 411 , 877 A.2d 899 , cert. granted on other grounds, 275 Conn. 929 , 883 A.2d 1245 (2005).

2005In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Green v. Holy Trinity Church of God in Christ, 16 Conn. App. 700, 703-704 , 549 A.2d 281 (1988); see also Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Schlesinger, 220 Conn. 152, 156-57 , 595 A.2d 872 (1991).

2005In the absence of clear error, this court should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of at least some of the witnesses.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Green v. Holy Trinity Church of God in Christ, 16 Conn. App. 700, 703-704 , 549 A.2d 281 (1988); see also Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Schlesinger, 220 Conn. 152, 156-57 , 595 A.2d 872 (1991).

2003Thus, this court’s review is limited to whether the trial court’s conclusion was reasonable.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bosco v. Arrowhead by the Lake, Inc., 53 Conn. App. 873, 875 , 732 A.2d 205 (1999).

2003Thus, this court’s review is limited to whether the trial court’s conclusion was reasonable.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bosco v. Arrowhead by the Lake, Inc., 53 Conn. App. 873, 875 , 732 A.2d 205 (1999).

2001In the absence of clear error [we] should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of . . . the witnesses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lapuk v. Simons, 41 Conn. App. 750 , 677 A.2d 24 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 926 , 683 A.2d 21 (1996).

2001In the absence of clear error [we] should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of . . . the witnesses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lapuk v. Simons, 41 Conn. App. 750 , 677 A.2d 24 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 926 , 683 A.2d 21 (1996).

2001In the absence of clear error [we] should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of . . . the witnesses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lapuk v. Simons, 41 Conn. App. 750 , 677 A.2d 24 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 926 , 683 A.2d 21 (1996).

2001In the absence of clear error [we] should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility of . . . the witnesses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lapuk v. Simons, 41 Conn. App. 750 , 677 A.2d 24 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 926 , 683 A.2d 21 (1996).

1999Thus, this court’s review is limited to whether the trial court’s conclusion was reasonable.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Clark v. Damiani, 12 Conn. App. 805, 806 , 531 A.2d 1202 (1987).

1999Thus, this court’s review is limited to whether the trial court’s conclusion was reasonable.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Clark v. Damiani, 12 Conn. App. 805, 806 , 531 A.2d 1202 (1987).

1995“In the absence of clear error [an appellate court] should not overrule the thoughtful decision of the trial court, which has had an opportunity to assess the legal issues which may be raised and to weigh the credibility ... of the witnesses.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

1990Raveis & Associates, Inc. v. Kimball, [ 186 Conn. 329, 333 , 441 A.2d 200 (1982)]; Babiarz v. Hartford Special, Inc., supra, 392-94; see also Michael Papa Associates v. Julian, supra, 447 .

1990Raveis & Associates, Inc. v. Kimball, [ 186 Conn. 329, 333 , 441 A.2d 200 (1982)]; Babiarz v. Hartford Special, Inc., supra, 392-94; see also Michael Papa Associates v. Julian, supra, 447 .