Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Harris

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• \[p]arol evidence may be admissible to explain ambiguities that exist in the contract\ [internal quotation marks omitted]
• ‘‘[i]n Connecticut, our appellate courts do not presume error on the part of the trial court’’
• We ‘‘do not presume error on the part of the trial court. . . . Rather, we presume that the trial court, in rendering its judgment . . . undertook the proper analysis of the law and the facts.’’ [Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.]
• ‘‘In Connecticut, our appellate courts do not presume error on the part of the trial court. . . . Rather, we presume that the trial court, in rendering its judgment . . . undertook the proper analysis of the law and the facts.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
• ‘‘In Connecticut, our appellate courts do not presume error on the part of the trial court. . . . Rather, we presume that the trial court, in rendering its judgment . . . undertook the proper analysis of the law and the facts.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).