Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)

Citation: Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
Parent Document: Li Li v. Canberra Industries, 39 A.3d 789 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2012-03-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2295755/li-li-v-canberra-industries/ ↗

Full Text

1,122 chars

Our standard of review for summary judgment is well settled. “Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... On appeal, we must determine whether the legal conclusions reached by the trial court are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision of the trial court. . . . Our review of the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is plenary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aspetuck Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Weston, 292 Conn. 817, 822, 975 A.2d 1241 (2009).

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text