Legal Opinion

Cappelletti v. Tierney

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 12, 1924PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKellogg, J.

The plaintiff seeks a correction of the finding in many particulars, both by substituting certain of the statements of his draft-finding for those contained in the finding made by the court, and by adding thereto certain paragraphs. A careful examination of the evidence discloses that in substance practically all of the facts sought to be incorporated in the finding by the proposed correction in and additions thereto, are covered by the finding as made by the court. “It is not required that the court’s finding in any paragraph shall be in the identical language of the request, though the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Norton v. DoolittleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1865
  2. Adler v. Ammerman Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
  3. Freedman v. AverySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
  4. Olesen v. BeckanstinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
  5. Seymour v. O'KeefeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1876

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Terzano v. ClementeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  2. Bernhardt v. CappellettiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  3. New Bedford Acceptance Corp. v. Universal Auto Co.Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1935
  4. New Bedford Acceptance Corp. v. Universal Auto Co.Connecticut Superior Court · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API