Coles v. Coles

Beverly A. Coles v. Joseph T. Coles

Coles v. Coles, 553 A.2d 1169 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court · State Appellate Courts
Decided: February 22, 1989
Docket: No. 6400
Citations: 553 A.2d 116917 Conn. App. 8311989 Conn. App. LEXIS 59

Cited by 6

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court dissolving the parties’ marriage, distributing their property and allocating their liabilities, and awarding custody of and support for the parties’ minor child to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the defendant claims six grounds of error that attack either the factual findings of the court, or its exercise of discretion. We will not retry the case. Pulaski v. Ledwith, 5 Conn. App. 629, 631 , 501 A.2d 396 (1985). Our review of the record fails to disclose that the factual findings of the court were clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings, or that the decision was otherwise erroneous in law; Practice Book § 4061; or unsupported by the evidence; Branigan v. Cohen, 3 Conn. App. 580, 581 , 490 A.2d 1019 (1985) . On appeal, rulings involving the court’s discretion will be disturbed only upon a showing of a clear abuse of that discretion. Leech v. Rozbicki, 17 Conn. App. 352, 353 , 552 A.2d 451 (1989). Our review of the record also indicates that the court acted within its broad discretion.

The defendant, as the appellant, has the burden of showing that there was error in the judgment from which the appeal was taken. Manzin v. United Bank & Trust Co., 6 Conn. App. 513, 517 , 506 A.2d 169 (1986) . After affording the claims of error the appropriate scope of review, we find that the defendant has not met his burden.

There is no error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts6

Relies on it most ⓘ

Kronholm v. Kronholm582 A.2d 1178 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
Baldwin v. Baldwin562 A.2d 581 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Cromwell Commons Associates v. Koziura570 A.2d 1131 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
Pietra v. American Factors, Inc.556 A.2d 1064 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Hughes v. Town of Glastonbury562 A.2d 591 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Strother v. Strother572 A.2d 391 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)

Most recent

Kronholm v. Kronholm582 A.2d 1178 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
Cromwell Commons Associates v. Koziura570 A.2d 1131 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
Strother v. Strother572 A.2d 391 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
Hughes v. Town of Glastonbury562 A.2d 591 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Baldwin v. Baldwin562 A.2d 581 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Pietra v. American Factors, Inc.556 A.2d 1064 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Manzin v. United Bank & Trust Co., 506 A.2d 169 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986)	21
	Pulaski v. Ledwith, 501 A.2d 396 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985)	11
	Branigan v. Cohen, 490 A.2d 1019 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985)	8
	Leech v. Rozbicki, 552 A.2d 451 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)	5

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list