Legal Opinion
Nagyfy v. Miller's Stratford Provision Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 4, 1958PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Per Ctjriam.
This appeal is really an attempt to retry the case in this court under the guise of claims for correction of the commissioner’s finding. The finding is not subject to correction under our rule. Practice Book §312; Civitello v. Connecticut Savings Bank, 128 Conn. 621, 625, 25 A.2d 47.
The burden of proving the extent of his incapacity and that it was caused by his injury was on the plaintiff, just as was the burden of proving that his injury arose in the course of, and out of, his employment. Triano v. United States Rubber Co., 144 Conn. 393, 396, 132 A.2d 570. In no way does this…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Triano v. United States Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
- Civitello v. Connecticut Savings BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
- Romaniec v. Collins Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
3Cited by5 opinions
- Murchison v. Skinner Precision Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
- Gordon v. United Aircraft CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- Shira v. National Business Systems, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1991
- Poulick v. Radio City RestaurantSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Soucier v. GenoveseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964