John DeMichiel & Bros. v. Sequin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Per curiam
This is a petition for a new trial alleging two grounds: One, that the trial judge, after the conclusion of the trial, inspected the premises of his own motion and in the absence of the parties or their counsel; and the other that “there is not a reasonable certainty” that he inspected the premises involved in the action. The statute, General Statutes, § 5701, after stating certain grounds upon which a new trial may be granted, adds “or for other reasonable cause”; and misconduct on the part of a trier may be a sufficient ground. State v. Brockhaus, 72 Conn. 109, 111, 43 Atl. 650; Burns v.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Artman v. ArtmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Gannon v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- Dudley v. HullSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- State v. BrockhausSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Burns v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1911
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Reilly v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
- Black v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- Pearson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Wojculewicz v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
- Beach v. Town of TrumbullSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.