Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Citation
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Parent Document
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1985-08-27
Other Sections in This Document (13)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (1985)
Full Text
698 charsThe decisive claim of error on the complaint is that the trial court erred in reversing, after the trial, a ruling which it had made on the admissibility of an item of evidence. During the trial, the court admitted into evidence, over the defendant’s objection, a letter written by the defendant stating that it was willing to concede $3600 for painting although its position was that *120it was not responsible for this item of repair. In an “addendum” to the court’s memorandum of decision, however, the court stated that it “now agrees with the defendant’s objection and rules that it is part of the settlement negotiation and . . . therefore may not be considered by the court.”2 We find error.