Legal Opinion

Xanthakey v. Hayes

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 8, 1928PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The defendant’s requests that paragraphs seven and eighteen of the finding be stricken out are denied except that “some of the subtenants” as stated in paragraph eighteen is changed to “one of the subtenants.” Paragraphs twenty-eight, twenty-nine and thirty-nine of the finding are stricken out as conclusions of law. Defendant’s requests thai paragraphs four, thirteen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty-three and twenty-four of the draft-finding be added to the finding are denied as contrary to the evidence, or based on conflicting evidence, and her requests that paragraphs twelve, sixteen, seventeen,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. F. B. Fountain Co. v. SteinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
  2. House v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Thompson v. CoeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
  4. Schroeder v. GemeinderNevada Supreme Court · 1875
  5. Hall v. CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Jones v. GibbsTexas Supreme Court · 1939
  2. McClellan v. AshleySupreme Court of Virginia · 1958
  3. Galvin v. SimonsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
  4. Simons v. YoungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  5. Western Savings Fund Society v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981

28 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