Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Citation
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-09-11
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
Full Text
823 chars“[This] court shall not be bound to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at the trial or arose subsequent to the trial. . . .” Practice Book § 60-5. Here, the court never considered whether the requisite agency relationship existed because it appeared to be an undisputed fact at trial. Having led the court to believe that it was not contesting the issue of agency, the defendant may not now claim on appeal that the court improperly found that it was bound by the actions taken by Murray on behalf of Saldana, the principal. To allow such a claim to be raised on appeal “would be nothing more than a trial by ambuscade of the trial judge.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Monette v. Monette, 102 Conn. App. 1, 18 n.3, 924 A.2d 894 (2007) (Schaller, J., concurring); see also Ahern v. Fuss & O’Neill, Inc.,