Pathfinders prepared by the Connecticut Judicial Branch law librarians:

• Motion for Articulation Research Guide

• Sec. 60-5 - Review by the Court; Plain Error; Preservation of Claims 
• Sec. 66-5 - Motion for rectification; Motion for articulation 
• Sec. 66-7 - Motion for review of motion for rectification of appeal or articulation

The link below is to an advance release slip opinion and is for informational purposes only.

• AC31042 - Szekeres v. Miller, 123 Conn. App. 578 (2010).
  Furthermore, as we often have observed: ‘‘Our role
  is not to guess at possibilities, but to review claims based on a complete factual record developed by a trial court. . . . Without the necessary factual and legal conclusions furnished by the trial court . . . any decision made by us respecting [the plaintiffs’ claim] would be entirely speculative.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chase Manhattan Bank/City Trust v. AECO Elevator Co., 48 Conn. App. 605, 608–609, 710 A.2d 190 (1998). ‘‘It is well established that [a]n articulation is appropriate where the trial court’s decision contains some ambiguity or deficiency reasonably susceptible of clarification. . . . [P]roper utilization of the motion for articulation serves to dispel any . . . ambiguity by clarifying the factual and legal basis upon which the trial court rendered its decision, thereby sharpening the issues on appeal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thomas T. Lonardo, P.C. v. Dichello, 121 Conn. App. 528, 533, 996 A.2d 758 (2010). Finally, ‘‘we will, in the absence of a motion for articulation, assume that the trial court acted properly.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Berglass v. Berglass, 71 Conn. App. 771, 789, 804 A.2d 889 (2002).