Case Name: Joseph L. Lynch et al. v. Granby Holdings, Inc., et al.; Granby Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Daniel L. Lynch
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1995-07-17
Citations: 234 Conn. 919
Docket Number: SC 15298
Parties: Joseph L. Lynch et al. v. Granby Holdings, Inc., et al. Granby Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Daniel L. Lynch
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 234
Pages: 919–919

Head Matter:
Joseph L. Lynch et al. v. Granby Holdings, Inc., et al. Granby Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Daniel L. Lynch
The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15298.
Decided July 17, 1995
Andrea Hewitt, in support of the petition.
Timothy Brignole, in opposition.
Superseded. See 235 Conn. 941 (1996).

Opinion:
The petition of Granby Holdings, Inc., for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 37 Conn. App. 846 (AC 11222), is granted, limited to the following issues:
"1. Under the circumstances of this case, was the question of the burden of proof on the issue of mitigation of damages properly raised by the plaintiff Daniel Lynch in the trial court?
"2. Should this court reconsider the holding of Pietrorazio v. Santopietro, 185 Conn. 510 (1981), that the failure to raise a claim in a motion to set aside a verdict limits this court to plain error review of that claim?
"3. Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court employ the plain error doctrine to review on appeal the plaintiffs claim regarding the issue of the burden of proof on mitigation of damages?
"4. If the answer to 3. is yes, did the Appellate Court act properly in doing so?"