Trappe v. Bolgard

3 Citing cases

  1. Verderame v. Trinity Estates Development Corp.

    92 Conn. App. 230 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding as inadequate statement: “Did the court err in its findings of facts and conclusions of law?”

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Trappe v. Bolgard, 80 Conn. App. 384, 385, 835 A.2d 115 (2003). We cannot reach the merits of the defendants' claims because their brief is devoid of any legal analysis and, therefore, we deem their claims abandoned.

  2. In re William

    88 Conn. App. 511 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that plenary review applied to questions of whether confidentiality under General Statutes § 46b-124 "can be waived and, if so, whether it was effectively waived in this case"

    On appeal, the appellants do not raise any specific claim regarding right of access to the state's case file. Because that issue was not raised or adequately briefed on appeal, it is deemed abandoned. See Trappe v. Bolgard, 80 Conn. App. 384, 385, 835 A.2d 115 (2003). II

  3. Williams v. Freedom of Inf. Commission

    2006 Ct. Sup. 19952 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Trappe v. Bolgard, 80 Conn.App. 384, 385, 835 A.2d 115 (2003). Other than stating her opinions, the plaintiff has failed to provide any legal or factual support to these arguments.