Legal Opinion

Demunda v. Loomis

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 26, 1940PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

The question to be decided is: Was the conduct of the named defendant, hereinafter called the defendant, in suddenly stopping his car without signalling his intention to do so, as required by Cum. Sup. 1935, § 637c, a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs’ injuries? The conclusion of the trial court, attacked by the defendant, that neither Marti nor Fenn, the other actors in the drama, were negligent, is too clearly one of fact to merit discussion.

The finding is attacked in many particulars but no correction material to the question to be determined can be made. The plaintiffs were…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mahoney v. BeatmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
  2. Roden v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
  3. Kinderavich v. PalmerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
  4. Corey v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
  5. Lombardi v. WalladSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Collins v. City National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
  2. Miranti v. Brookside Shopping Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
  3. Pinto v. SpignerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1972
  4. Vastola v. Connecticut Protective System, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
  5. McDowell v. Federal Tea Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1941

5 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