Donnelly Brick Co. v. City of New Britain
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.
The plaintiff’s cause of action is founded upon the pollution of Willow Brook, and upon the increase of the carrying capacity of the brook beyond its capacity, by the defendant city. The part of the appeal which is properly before us is from the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict and in certain instructions given the jury. We take up first the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict, with especial reference to the cause of action founded upon the pollution of Willow Brook. As we read the evidence we are of the opinion that .the jury must reasonably have found these…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Platt Bros. v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1900
- Nolan v. City of New BritainSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- New Milford Water Co. v. WatsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Morgan v. City of DanburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
- Gorham v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1907
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Crowell v. PalmerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
- Dimmock v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Southern New England Ice Co. v. Town of West HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Kuhlmann v. Platte Valley Irrigation DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1958
- Beauton v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.