General
William G. Schmid et al. v. Stephen Doerrer et al.; Stephen Doerrer et al. v. William G. Schmid et al.
26 Conn. App. 919·Connecticut Appellate Court·1991·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
William G. Schmid et al. v. Stephen Doerrer et al. Stephen Doerrer et al. v. William G. Schmid et al.
(9858)
O’Connell, Norcott and Heiman, Js.
Argued November 7
decision released December 3, 1991
Geraldine Battistoli, for the appellants (defendants in the first case, plaintiffs in the second case).
EdwardS. Domnarski, Jr., for the appellees (plaintiffs in the first case, defendants in the second case).
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Our review of the record, briefs and oral argument convinces us that the conclusions reached by the attorney trial referee and accepted by the trial court are more than adequately supported by the subordinate facts found. Clark v. Drska, 1 Conn. App. 481, 484-85, 473 A.2d 325 (1984).
The judgment is affirmed.