Harbert v. Monongahela River Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• disagreeing with defendant’s argument that ‘‘interim [custody] orders’’ under Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 440 A.2d 899 (1981
• challenge to interim custody and visitation orders was moot in light of subsequent orders in which court ‘‘reiterat[ed]’’ orders or left them ‘‘largely unchanged,’’ and proper recourse was to challenge later orders (internal quotation marks omitted)
• ‘‘[w]e are limited in our review to determining whether the trial court abused its broad discretion to award custody based upon the best interests of the child as reasonably supported by the evidence’’ (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).