Gil v. Gil

64 Citing cases

  1. Stanziale v. Hunt

    219 Conn. App. 71 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    2. They are not relevant or germane to [the plaintiff's] medical treatment. (See, e.g., Gil v. Gil , 94 Conn. App. 306, 320, 892 A.2d 318 (2006) ; State v. Dollinger , 20 Conn. App. 530, 534, 568 A.2d 1058, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 805, 574 A.2d 220 (1990) (‘[b]ecause statements concerning the cause of injury ... are generally not germane to treatment, they are not allowed into evidence under the medical treatment exception [to the rule against hearsay]’).

  2. Quinlan v. Quinlan

    2010 Ct. Sup. 5241 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)

    In appropriate circumstances a parent's continuing interference with visitation has been found to be a basis for a finding that such parent is in contempt of the orders of the court. See e. g., Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 312 n. 4, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). In extreme circumstances a parent's efforts at prohibiting and/or interfering with court-ordered visitation can result in that parent losing custody of the minor child and the commissioner of the department of children and families ("DCF") being appointed as custodian. Bhatia v. Debek, CT Page 5242 2005 Ct.Sup. 7854, 7895, No. NNH FA 00-04005681S, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven (Munro, J., May 2, 2005).

  3. In re Marcus S.

    2008 Ct. Sup. 3329 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2008)   Cited 27 times

    In connection with determining the disposition of a neglect case, the court looks at the full picture of the family circumstances, including the full history of each parent's parenting abilities, to determine whether either parent can and will ". . . foster the [child's] growth, development and well-being . . ." Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 322, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). In the Gil case, a dissolution of marriage case, this requirement has been expressed as follows:

  4. McKeon v. Lennon

    155 Conn. App. 423 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 14 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 311, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). “We review the court's factual findings in the context of a motion for contempt to determine whether they are clearly erroneous.”

  5. Parisi v. Parisi

    140 Conn. App. 81 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 8 times
    Noting that court has no jurisdiction to modify property distribution provision in separation agreement incorporated into judgment of dissolution

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 311, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). The principal issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff wilfully failed to comply with a separation agreement incorporated into a dissolution judgment that provided for an alimony buyout in place of periodic alimony.

  6. Kronovitter v. Doyle

    41 A.3d 1108 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    Such testimonial inconsistencies, however, go to the weight rather than the admissibility of evidence. See Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 318, 892 A.2d 318 (2006) (“[t]he fact that evidence may be subject to several interpretations does not affect its admissibility as long as it can be construed as relevant”). III

  7. Kronovitter v. Doyle

    AC 31799 (Conn. App. Ct. Apr. 17, 2012)

    '' Such testimonial inconsistencies, however, go to the weight rather than the admissibility of evidence. See Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn. App. 306, 318, 892 A.2d 318 (2006) (''[t]he fact that evidence may be subject to several interpretations does not affect its admissibility as long as it can be construed as relevant''). III

  8. Allen v. Allen

    134 Conn. App. 486 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 15 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 311, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). “[It] is within the sound discretion of the court to deny a claim for contempt when there is an adequate factual basis to explain the failure to honor the court's order.”

  9. Bruno v. Bruno

    132 Conn. App. 339 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming Golding 's applicability to civil proceedings

    Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn.App. 306, 316, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). In the present case, we conclude that the defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the issue of Bartram's deposition fee.

  10. Martocchio v. Savoir

    23 A.3d 1282 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gil v. Gil, 94 Conn. App. 306, 310, 892 A.2d 318 (2006). This court has held that the trial court has the discretion to order a contemnor to submit to a psychological evaluation if it is necessary to enforce a court's earlier order.