Legal Opinion

Herbst v. Hat Corporation of America

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 19, 1943PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

The amended finding of the commissioner, as corrected, discloses the following facts: The plaintiff is the widow of Julius Herbst, who for fifteen years before his death worked as a maintenance man at the East Norwalk plant of the Hat Corporation of America, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. At about 9:40 a.m. during the regular working hours of Herbst on August 31, 1939, he secured a requisition for five pounds of nails and took it from plant 3 of the defendant to plant 1, situated some little distance away. When Herbst arrived at plant 1 the nails were not obtainable and he started…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Claim of Dependents of Marks v. GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Bountiful Brick Co. v. GilesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  3. Larke v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  4. Ritchie v. WallerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
  5. Mann v. Glastonbury Knitting Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1916

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Fair v. People's Savings BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  2. Rawling v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  3. McNamara v. Town of HamdenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
  4. Dombach v. Olkon Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  5. Kolomiets v. Syncor International Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000

18 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