Case Name: William G. Schmid et al. v. Stephen Doerrer et al.; Stephen Doerrer et al. v. William G. Schmid et al.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1991-12-03
Citations: 26 Conn. App. 919
Docket Number: 9858
Parties: William G. Schmid et al. v. Stephen Doerrer et al. Stephen Doerrer et al. v. William G. Schmid et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 919–919

Head Matter:
William G. Schmid et al. v. Stephen Doerrer et al. Stephen Doerrer et al. v. William G. Schmid et al.
(9858)
O’Connell, Norcott and Heiman, Js.
Argued November 7
decision released December 3, 1991
Geraldine Battistoli, for the appellants (defendants in the first case, plaintiffs in the second case).
EdwardS. Domnarski, Jr., for the appellees (plaintiffs in the first case, defendants in the second case).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Our review of the record, briefs and oral argument convinces us that the conclusions reached by the attorney trial referee and accepted by the trial court are more than adequately supported by the subordinate facts found. Clark v. Drska, 1 Conn. App. 481, 484-85, 473 A.2d 325 (1984).
The judgment is affirmed.