General

State of Connecticut v. Reliable Refuse, Inc., et al.

17 Conn. App. 801·Connecticut Appellate Court·1988·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

State of Connecticut v. Reliable Refuse, Inc., et al. (6366) Dupont, C. J., Spallone and Foti, Js. Argued October 4 decision released October 26, 1988 Albert G. Murphy, for the appellant (named defendant). Eugene A. Cooney, for the appellee (plaintiff). [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The named defendant is appealing from the judgment rendered for the plaintiff on the defendants’ counterclaim following a directed verdict. The defendants did not move to set aside the directed verdict, thereby limiting this court to a plain error standard of review. Practice Book § 4185; Pietrorazio v. Santopietro, 185 Conn. 510, 515, 441 A.2d 163 (1981); Denby v. Voloshin Cadillac, 3 Conn. App. 181, 183, 485 A.2d 1360, cert. dismissed, 196 Conn. 802, 491 A.2d 1105 (1985); Eagar v. Barron, 2 Conn. App. 468, 472, 480 A.2d 567 (1984). An examination of the record fails to disclose plain error. There is no error.