Legal Opinion
Clipfel v. Kantrowitz
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 27, 1956PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Sullivan, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to obtain (1) reformation of a written contract, (2) specific performance of the contract as reformed, and (3) damages. The court decided that reformation was unnecessary and rendered judgment for the plaintiff to recover damages on the ground that the contract as written had been broken. The defendant has appealed.
We are confronted at the outset by assignments of error directed at the finding. When, as here, a party claims that the court has found facts without evidence, he may state that claim in his brief and either print no evidence or print all that is…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Clark v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Veits v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
- Savings Bank of New London v. SantanielloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
- Berry v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Maruca v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Pasquariello v. PasquarielloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Fellows v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Dick v. DickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- Lakeview Associates v. Woodlake Master Condominium Ass'nSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Cushing v. SalmonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.