Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Citation
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-10-30
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
- Shobeiri v. Richards, 933 A.2d 728 (2007)
Full Text
853 chars67 Conn. App. 799, 789 A.2d 547 (2002). “This court has on occasion, however, reviewed an appellant’s claims in light of an unsigned transcript as long as the relevant transcript contains a sufficiently detailed and concise statement of the trial court’s findings.” Id., 802. In this case, such a statement of the court’s findings might exist had the defendant filed a motion for articulation, which she did not. “It is well settled that [a]n articulation is appropriate where the trial court’s decision contains some ambiguity or deficiency reasonably susceptible of clarification. . . . [P] roper utilization of the motion for articulation serves to dispel any . . . ambiguity by clarifying the factual and legal basis upon which the trial court rendered its decision . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dey, Smith & Collier, LLC v. Steenson,