Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1972

Bitonti v. Tucker

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided March 10, 1972

162 Conn. 626; 295 A.2d 545

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Tucker (Conn. 1979)
Hudson v. Administrator, No. Cv 00-0598587s (Dec. 15, 2000) (Connecticut Superior Court 2000)
Pollansky v. Coventry Pl. Zoning Comm., No. Cv 98 0066583s (Aug. 2, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
State v. Kung (Conn. App. Ct. 1999)
Mozzochi v. Freedom of Information Commission (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)
Werner v. Town of Easton, No. 295156 (Feb. 16, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
O'Neill v. Novak, No. Fa89 0103133 S (Sep. 7, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
LaBow v. LaBow (Conn. App. Ct. 1988)
Mantell v. Greene (Conn. App. Ct. 1988)
Conservation Commission v. Price (Conn. 1984)
Rodriguez v. Mallory Battery Co. (Conn. 1982)
Cersosimo v. Cersosimo (Conn. 1982)
Mechanics Savings Bank v. Tucker (Conn. 1979)
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Kluczinsky (Conn. 1976)
Ford v. Store Twenty Four, Inc., No. Cv 99 042 45 50 (Apr. 23, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
Gould v. United Illuminating Co., No. Cv 93 351501 (Jan. 17, 1996) (Connecticut Superior Court 1996)
Continental National American Group v. Majeske (Connecticut Superior Court 1973)
Continental National American Group v. Majeske (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 1973)
State v. Thibodeau (Connecticut Superior Court 1972)
State v. Thibodeau (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant in an action resulting from a stairway fall on the defendant’s premises. After the trial court filed its memorandum of decision finding the issues for the plaintiff, counsel who had represented the defendant on the trial of the case was permitted to withdraw his appearance and the defendant, acting pro se, appealed to this court from the judgment rendered. As is not unusual in such circumstances, where an appeal is attempted by a layman who is without legal training and unskilled in legal practice and procedure, the appeal claims innumerable errors on the part of the trial court, including assigned error in seventy-seven paragraphs relating to the draft finding and finding of the court.

*627In accordance with our established policy to allow great latitude to a litigant who, either by choice or necessity, represents himself in legal proceedings, so far as such latitude is consistent with the just rights of any adverse party, we have carefully examined and considered each of the claims of the defendant so far as it is possible to understand them. See Higgins v. Hartford County Bar Assn., 109 Conn. 690, 692, 145 A. 20. If there is merit to any of them, we have been unable to discover it and it would serve no useful purpose to discuss them seriatim.

There is no error.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.