Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to consider claim when appellant raised ‘vague assertion’ of claim in principal appellate brief and later ‘amplified her discussion of the issue considerably in her reply brief’
• declining to consider claim when appellant raised ‘‘vague assertion’’ of claim in principal appellate brief and later ‘‘amplified her discussion of the issue considerably in her reply brief’’
• “when a jury does not reach an issue in returning a verdict, alleged improprieties relating to that issue are harmless”
• ‘‘[i]n accordance with our juris- prudence and the lack of evidence to the contrary, we presume that the jury followed the trial court’s charging instructions’’
• “[t]o review [a] claim, which has been articulated for the first time on appeal and not before the trial court, would result in a trial by ambuscade of the trial judge” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• \[W]e consider an argument inadequately briefed when it is delineated only in the reply brief. [W]e generally decline to consider issues that are inadequately briefed ....\ [Internal quotation marks omitted.]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).