Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 46a-64c

Citation
Section 46a-64c
Parent Document
Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities Ex Rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 25 A.3d 632 (2011)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2011-08-30

Other Sections in This Document (123)

Full Text

798 chars
Within these seven claims, the defendants also make various unrelated contentions. As we later explain in this opinion, in addition to the fact that several of these claims are inadequately briefed for appellate review; see parts IV, V and VI of this opinion; others are wholly without merit. Having parsed the defendants’ brief to make this assessment, we cannot help but repeat an admonition that this court has issued previously: “All of [the claims] suffer from the difficulty that appellate pursuit of so large a number of issues forecloses the opportunity for [a] fully reasoned discussion of pivotal substantive concerns. A shotgun approach does a disservice both to this court and to the party on whose behalf it is presented.” Latham & Associates, Inc. v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc.,