Legal Opinion
Pope v. Town of Watertown
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 28, 1950PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDickenson, J.
In this action a demurrer to the complaint was sustained, a substitute complaint was filed, a demurrer to this was sustained and judgment for the defendant was entered on motion. The plaintiffs have appealed, assigning error in the sustaining of both demurrers and in the denial by the trial court of a motion to cite in a new party defendant. The voluntary filing of the substitute complaint operated as a withdrawal of the original complaint and that is not before us except as a part of the history of the case. Antman v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 117 Conn. 230, 234, 167 A. 715. The motion…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Antman v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Keegan v. Town of ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Maitland v. Town of ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1942
- Gregory v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1874
- Hotchkiss v. PlunkettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Rossignol v. Danbury School of Aeronautics, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Lettieri v. American Savings BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Royce v. Town of WestportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Good Humor Corp. v. RicciutiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Bennett v. Automobile InsuranceConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.