Legal Opinion

John DeMichiel & Bros. v. Sequin

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided April 19, 1932PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Artman v. ArtmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  2. Gannon v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
  3. Dudley v. HullSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
  4. State v. BrockhausSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
  5. Burns v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1911

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Reilly v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
  2. Black v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
  3. Pearson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  4. Wojculewicz v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
  5. Beach v. Town of TrumbullSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API