Legal Opinion
Kobryn v. Kobryn
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 25, 1968PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Per curiam
The finding is not subject to correction in any respect which will assist the plaintiff. Any correction to which the plaintiff is entitled would not change the result in any way. Taylor v. Taylor, 154 Conn. 340, 341, 225 A.2d 196; Sipp v. Sipp, 151 Conn. 705, 197 A.2d 73. The assignment of error on the evidential ruling was not briefed *639and must therefore be considered abandoned. Bartlett v. Flaherty, 155 Conn. 203, 204, 230 A.2d 436; Shelton Yacht & Cabana Club, Inc. v. Suto, 150 Conn. 251, 254, 188 A.2d 493; Hannifan v. Sachs, 150 Conn. 162, 165, 187 A.2d 253.
The conclusions which the court…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hannifan v. SachsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- Shelton Yacht & Cabana Club, Inc. v. SutoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- Taylor v. TaylorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Bartlett v. FlahertySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Sipp v. SippSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
3Cited by8 opinions
- Adams v. RubinowSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Barrett-Nonpareil, Inc. v. StollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- State v. GhiloniConnecticut Superior Court · 1978
- Time Finance Corp. v. ClarkConnecticut Appellate Court · 1969
- Maskel Construction Co. v. American Masons' Supply Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.