From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LaFlamme v. Cooke

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Jul 28, 1992
610 A.2d 200 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992)

Opinion

(10349)

Argued June 12, 1992

Decision released July 28, 1992

Action to recover damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with the sale of certain real property, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, where the defendant Anne Marie Cooke filed a counterclaim for veratious litigation; thereafter, the matter was tried to the jury before Gaffney, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendants appealed to this court. Affirmed.

James M. S. Ullman, for the appellants (defendants).

John R. Palumbo, for the appellees (plaintiffs).


After a careful review of the record and briefs in this matter, we find no plain error. In this matter, counsel agreed that our review is limited to the plain error standard. "When our review is limited to the plain error standard, the appellant does not have access to plenary review. Review for plain error is reserved for truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings. . . . We consider the . . . claims of error in the light of this rarefied standard of review." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Small v. South Norwalk Savings Bank, 205 Conn. 751, 759, 535 A.2d 1292 (1988).

We find that no extraordinary situation exists.


Summaries of

LaFlamme v. Cooke

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Jul 28, 1992
610 A.2d 200 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992)
Case details for

LaFlamme v. Cooke

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES LaFLAMME, SR., ET AL. v. MILTON L. COOKE, JR., ET AL

Court:Appellate Court of Connecticut

Date published: Jul 28, 1992

Citations

610 A.2d 200 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992)
28 Conn. App. 910