You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Morande v. Newman Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

Citations: 5 Conn. App. 423; 499 A.2d 78; 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 1162Docket: 2988

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; October 22, 1985; Connecticut; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the appellate court reviewed an appeal challenging the trial court's factual findings that favored the plaintiff's version of events amidst conflicting evidence. The appeal was scrutinized under the standard that appellate courts must determine whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. The focal point of the trial court's decision was its assessment of the plaintiff's credibility, as the trial court is tasked with judging the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimonies. The appellate court emphasized that its role is not to reweigh evidence but to ensure that the trial court's findings have a reasonable basis in the record. After examining the entire record, the appellate court found that the trial court's findings were adequately supported by evidence, not clearly erroneous, and the legal conclusions drawn therefrom were sound. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in its judgment.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review of Factual Findings

Application: The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings, confirming they were supported by evidence and were not clearly erroneous.

Reasoning: Upon reviewing the record, the court concluded that the contested facts are adequately supported by the evidence, are not clearly erroneous, and that the trial court's conclusions drawn from those facts are both legally and logically sound.

Credibility of Witnesses

Application: The trial court's evaluation of the plaintiff's credibility is central to its decision, as the determination of witness credibility and the weight of their testimonies lies with the trier of fact.

Reasoning: The trial court’s decision was grounded in its evaluation of the plaintiff's credibility, highlighting that the determination of witness credibility and the weight of their testimonies lies with the trier of fact.

Standard of Review on Appeal

Application: The appellate court verifies if the trial court's factual findings are supported by evidence and checks for clear error within the context of the entire record.

Reasoning: The appellate court's role is limited to assessing whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by the evidence and determining if those findings are clearly erroneous when viewed in the context of the entire record.