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
1,292 charsRecently, the court stated that “[i]n the absence of a motion to correct the report or an objection to its acceptance because the facts had been improperly found, we examine these facts solely to determine whether the referee’s findings were clearly erroneous.” (Emphasis added.) Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc., 231 Conn. 707, 727-28, 652 A.2d 446 (1995). This statement is criticized by the authors of the annotated Practice Book. See W. *52Moller & W. Horton, 1 Connecticut Practice Series: Practice Book Annotated (Sup. 1997) § 438, authors’ comments. They refer to this dictum as a non sequitur because “[f]indings of fact are always reviewed on the clearly erroneous test.” Id. Citing Naftzger v. Naftzger & Kuhe, Inc., 26 Conn. App. 521, 525, 602 A.2d 606 (1992) (failing to file motion to correct or objection to acceptance of report precludes party from effective appellate review) in their comments to § 440, the authors suggest that a plain error review should apply in the absence of a motion to correct. W. Moller & W. Horton, supra, § 440, authors’ comments. They presumably base that suggestion on the argument that the failure to file a motion to correct should create an even more ratified standard of review than the customary standard used in reviewing factual findings.