Contracts · MBE-tested
MARK HEINONEN v. JAMES M. MANDRACCHIA ET AL.
120 Conn. App. 836·Connecticut Appellate Court·2010·CT
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MARK HEINONEN v. JAMES M. MANDRACCHIA ET AL.
(AC 30858)
Flynn, C. J., and Graendel and West, Js.
Argued February 17
officially released May 4, 2010
Mark Heinonen, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
J. Kevin Golger, for the appellees (defendants).
The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
In this negligence action, the plaintiff, Mark Heinonen, appeals from the judgment, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the defendants, James M. Mandracchia and Cheryl Mandracchia. After a thorough review of the record, transcripts, briefs and oral argument, and affording those claims that properly are before this court careful consideration, we conclude that the plaintiffs claims are without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.