A Brief Review
A Connecticut Appellate Law Blog
TOPICS:
- A Brief Review (21)
- Abuse of discretion (2)
- Adequate record for review (4)
- Administrative appeal (1)
- Alternative grounds for affirmance (3)
- Appeal deadlines (1)
- Appellant (7)
- Appellate motions (4)
- Appellate process (8)
- Appellate stay (2)
- Appellee (3)
- Breach of contract (1)
- Child support appeals (1)
- Civil appeals (3)
- Comparative negligence (1)
- Complaint (1)
- Complex litigation (1)
- Connecticut Appellate Court (9)
- Connecticut Practice Book (8)
- Connecticut Rules of Appellate Procedure (8)
- Connecticut Supreme Court (2)
- Constructive notice (1)
- CORE 4 (3)
- Custody and visitation (1)
- Family appeals (4)
- Golding (1)
- Insurance (1)
- Issue preservation (4)
- Land use (1)
- Motion for articulation (1)
- Motion for review (1)
- Motion to dismiss (1)
- Motion to open (1)
- Motion to reargue (3)
- Negligence (2)
- Personal injury (2)
- Plain error (1)
- Pleadings (1)
- Plenary review (1)
- Post-judgment motions (4)
- Preliminary appeal papers (2)
- Premises liability (1)
- Probate appeals (1)
- Standing (2)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Subject matter jurisdiction (3)
- Supervisory authority (1)
- Trial court motions (2)
- Trial strategy (1)
- Unpreserved issues (1)
- Workers' compensation insurance law (1)
- Zoning (1)
- Firm News (16)
Category: Preliminary appeal papers
-
As we approach 2026, appellate attorneys and litigants in Connecticut should take time to familiarize themselves with the most recent amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which take effect on January 1, 2026. As with prior years, the amendments reflect a continued effort by the appellate courts to modernize practice, streamline procedures, and align rules with electronic filing realities. Some of
-
When an appellant challenges a trial court’s factual findings, attention to procedural rules is crucial. In Park Seymour Associates, LLC v. City of Hartford / Park Squire Associates, LLC v. City of Hartford, the plaintiffs discovered this the hard way. Despite their reliance on testimony to argue that the trial court’s factual findings were clearly