Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Citation
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Parent Document
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1997-05-06
Other Sections in This Document (32)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (1997)
Full Text
875 charsThe plaintiff claims that she is not contesting the findings of fact or factual conclusions of the attorney referee. She asserts, rather, that the trial court, by adopting the report of the attorney referee, improperly applied the law to the facts as found by the attorney referee. “The reviewing court is the effective arbiter of the law and the legal opinions of [an attorney referee], like those of the parties, though they may be helpful, *53carry no weight not justified by their soundness as viewed by the court that renders judgment.” Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., supra, 199 Conn. 510. While we do not condone the plaintiffs failure to raise such challenges to the attorney referee in a motion to correct, exceptions or objections to the trial court, we must evaluate the trial court’s adoption of the attorney referee report as it applies the law to the facts. II