Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
MICHAEL DEVINCENTIS v. VALERIE DEVINCENTIS
39 Conn. App. 931·Connecticut Appellate Court·1995·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
MICHAEL DEVINCENTIS v. VALERIE DEVINCENTIS
(13609)
Foti, Lavery and Landau, Js.
Argued October 31
decision released December 5, 1995
James V. Somers, with whom, on the brief, were Suzanne L. McAlpine, and John J. Keefe, Jr., for the appellant (plaintiff).
James B. Streeto, for the appellee (defendant).
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dissolution. This appeal can best be categorized as a valiant but futile effort to retry the case in this court. No novel principles of law or appellate procedures are involved and to discuss the defendant’s claim would serve no good purpose. See Byrne v. Trice, 170 Conn. 442, 442-43, 365 A.2d 1063 (1976).
The judgment is affirmed.