Matter of Danielle E.P. v. Christopher N.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that error harmless because appellant failed to identify any specific harm from improper introduction of evidence
• holding defendant preserved claim despite failure to object to specific testimony in light of ‘‘trial court’s previously expressed sentiment about the issue’’
• although defendant did not object to specific testimony, review of claim granted in light of “the trial court’s previously expressed sentiment about the issue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).