Legal Opinion

Fernandez v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided April 8, 1926PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

Aside from the charge upon the question of damages, the chief contention of the appellant is in the admission of parol evidence extending the scope of exhibits A and B, which defendant claimed contained the entire agreement of the parties. The question is not properly raised in the statement of the ruling upon this point, since it does not appear from it that the answer to the question ruled upon was responsive, or harmful to defendant. Disregarding this technical but entirely conclusive answer to this reason of appeal, we find the trial court was, upon the merits, correct in its ruling. The…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Thomas v. . DickinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
  2. Devin v. HimerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
  3. Brosty v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
  4. Asbestos Products Corporation v. MatsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
  5. Reader v. GrossmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Cohn v. DunnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  2. Linahan v. LinahanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
  3. Collins v. LewisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  4. Harris v. ClintonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
  5. Keefe v. Norwalk Cove Marina, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2000

4 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