Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)

Citation
Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Parent Document
Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2012-04-17

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text

936 chars
“[T]he scope of our appellate review depends [on] the proper characterization of the rulings made by the trial court. To the extent that the trial court has made findings of fact, our review is limited to deciding whether such findings were clearly erroneous. When, however, the trial court draws conclusions of law, our review is plenary and we must decide whether its conclusions are legally and logically correct and find support in the facts that appear in the record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc., 298 Conn. 414, 423-24, 3 A.3d 919 (2010). Therefore, whether the defendants can be held vicariously hable for the actions of Interstate is a question of law over which our review is plenary. To the extent that the defendants challenge the court’s underlying factual findings that support its legal conclusion of vicarious liability, we consider whether such factual findings are clearly erroneous.